Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS &C.) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Facilities, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of his policy that, owing to shortage of finance and materials, television facilities cannot yet be provided for Aberdeen, why he has authorised the provision of a booster television station for Brighton and Hove in Sussex, which already had television facilities; and if he will now revise his refusal to provide immediate television facilities for Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): As I have already informed the hon. and learned Member, the booster station was authorised in order to give reasonable service to some thousands of people who had already invested in television sets but could make little effective use of them owing to the screening effect of the South Downs. As regards the second part of the Question, a general statement on television will be made shortly.

Mr. Hughes: As official television facilities are being afforded not only to Brighton but to certain continental countries, including France and Belgium, at considerable national expense in money and labour, surely the hon. Gentleman can do something to boost television for Aberdeen?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better wait until I make my general statement on television development.

Mr. John MacLeod: What area northwards is the station in Aberdeen likely to serve?

Mr. Gammans: There is no station yet in Aberdeen.

Mr. MacLeod: I know that, but what radius northwards will be served if there is soon to be a station at Aberdeen, as I hope there will be?

Mr. Gammans: I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when he is proposing to make the general statement on television development?

Mr. Gammans: I hope it will be not too long after the House reassembles.

Commercial Broadcasting (Licence Applications)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to give a list of the daily papers which have now applied for a licence for commercial television.

Mr. Gammans: Since this question was last raised in the House, I have looked at the matter again to see if it would be possible for me to disclose these names. I would very much like to do so. I find, however, that until the frequencies available and the general conditions governing commercial broadcasting are announced, these applications must be largely of a provisional nature. Some of them are little more than enquiries. It is my noble Friend's intention to announce the names of all applicants as soon as firm conditions have been decided and applications have been confirmed.

Mr. Hobson: Does the reply mean that the Postmaster-General will make known in another place who the applicants for


the frequencies are before the licences are granted, or will the House be faced, particularly with regard to the newspapers, with a fait accompli?

Mr. Gammans: The House has been promised a full debate on the terms of the licence when the first television licences are granted. I have told the hon. Gentleman that it is my noble Friend's intention to disclose the names as soon as possible.

Sir R. Grimston: Is there any truth in the suggestion that among the list of applicants are the "Daily Herald" and the "Manchester Guardian"?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot disclose that, but I can assure the House that there are newspapers of very widely differing political views who wish to have television stations of their own.

Mr. Hobson: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Question of the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) reveals a leak.

B.B.C. Licence Revenue

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he is satisfied that the British Broadcasting Corporation requires the whole of the licence revenue in order to carry out the development of very high frequency in accordance with Command Paper No. 8550;
(2) if the British Broadcasting Corporation has yet made representations to the Government for the whole of the net licence revenue in order that they may adequately develop sound and television broadcasting; and what is the Government decision thereon.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. has asked for the entire "net" revenue from broadcast receiving licences, and this request is being considered by the Government.

Advisory Committee Report

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee will be published.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend has now received the Report, and printed copies will be available as soon as possible after the House reassembles.

Mr. Fletcher: May I take it we shall have an early opportunity of discussing it in the House?

Mr. Gammans: That, of course, is not a matter for me to say.

Motor Vehicles (Suppressors)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, as a result of the failure of the voluntary scheme, he will now introduce a Regulation requiring the fitting of suppressors to motor vehicles to reduce interference with television reception.

Mr. Gammans: I would agree that the voluntary scheme has not been as successful as it was hoped it would be, but my noble Friend is reluctant to adopt compulsory measures, involving as they would the power of inspection over individual motor vehicles and an increase in staff. This summer it is proposed to start, both through the Post Office and the motor trades, a widespread campaign to encourage motorists to fit suppressors to their cars.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What is the price of fitting these suppressors?

Mr. Gammans: It varies. Some cars need only one suppressor on the distributor, but others want one on each plug.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not possible for the Assistant Postmaster-General to approach his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and suggest that when cars are licensed there should be a declaration on the application form to the effect that suppressors have been fitted? In that event it would obviate this difficulty.

Mr. Gammans: I will look at that suggestion, but quite a lot of information is already asked for on that form.

Sir R. Grimston: Is my hon. Friend contemplating issuing a Regulation making the fitting of these suppressors compulsory on new models after a certain date?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, that has been laid before this House and comes into force on 1st July this year.

Receivers (Wavelength Adaptors)

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what information he has sought from the electronic industry as to the capital cost of


introducing commercial television, including the use of adaptors for receivers now under licence.

Mr. Gammans: No reliable costs can be given by the radio industry until the size of the transmitting stations and the range of frequencies to be covered by the adaptors have been settled.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General assure the House that this information and all particulars relating to the matter will be placed before this House when he makes his promised report on television?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot give that assurance, but a general programme of television development of all sorts will be laid before this House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my hon. Friend give some indication as to how much the adaptors are likely to cost?

Mr. Gammans: No, it is not possible at this stage to give any reliable estimate of the cost until it is decided in which wave band or frequency band the station will work.

Licences

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of television sets in use in the United Kingdom at the latest convenient date, for which licences have been obtained and paid for; and what is the annual rate of increase of such sets, in each of the next five years, that has been assessed by his Department when formulating plans for building new television stations and obtaining capital investment sanction for these new stations, including boosters.

Mr. Gammans: On 31st March, 1953, the number was 2,142,452. So far as can be assessed, growth in television licences in the next few years will be at the rate of about 600,000 a year; but there are many factors, apart from the number of licences, which go to determine the amount of capital investment which the B.B.C. may be allowed to incur for development.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he is watching trends in overseas countries in this matter? Is he aware that the number of television sets in the City of Chicago is

now reputed to exceed the number of telephones and bath-tubs there, and what deductions does he draw from these extraordinary sociological trends?

Mr. Gammans: That is a prospect which fills me with undiluted horror.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many television licences have been bought in the United Kingdom in the 12 months ended 30th April, 1953; how many sets were in use on that date; whether he has formed an estimate as to the extent of evasion of payment for television licences; and what steps he is taking to prevent such malpractices.

Mr. Gammans: About 700,000. It is not possible to say precisely how many sets are in use at any time, but we estimate that some new sets may be in use for a month or so before the buyers take out their licences. With regard to evasion generally, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the reply to his next Question.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend clarify one point? With whom does the responsibility rest for apprehending evasion of payment for a television licence? Is it with the police or is it with the officers of his Department?

Mr. Gammans: The G.P.O. is responsible for the collection of radio and television licences.

Mr. Lewis: Here again could the Minister consider issuing all the retailers with the appropriate application form so that when they sell the set they will sell it with a registered number which can be returned to his Department, which could probably pay a commission because it would pay the Department to get the money in that way?

Mr. Gammans: That interesting suggestion has been considered. The difficulty is that the only way to make it workable would be to make it compulsory, and that would mean the introduction of legislation.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the practice of his Department in regard to the initiation of action against persons owning household or car-borne wireless sets and household television sets for which licences have not been purchased; what is the


assessed number of persons evading payment for licences; what is the assessed loss of revenue annually; and what further action he contemplates, notably in connection with car-borne radio sets, which are rapidly increasing in numbers.

Mr. Gammans: There is no reason to believe that wilful evasion of radio and television licences is either widespread or increasing. No reliable estimate can be given of the number of evasions, but the continued use of modern means of detection, which now include special television detection vans, should gradually reduce evasion. As regards sets fitted in cars, it is too early to estimate the effect of the new arrangement with the Ministry of Transport, about which I gave information to my hon. Friend on 21st January.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that millions of man hours are being wasted every year by requiring persons who own motor vehicles with radio sets in them to tax their motor vehicles at one Government office and then to go round to the Post Office to buy a radio licence for it? Is it not possible to amalgamate these functions and sell a radio licence with a car at the same time as the motor car is up for taxing?

Mr. Gammans: The application form which the owner of a motor car is now called upon to fill in before he takes out his annual or quarterly licence contains an item asking him if he has a radio fitted to his car, and if so, does he realise that it has to be licensed. I would like to see how that will work—I think myself it will be successful—before we go further.

North-East Coast

Miss Ward: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the present priority as regards extension of capital investment available for broadcasting and television on the North-East Coast.

Mr. Gammans: As the House is aware, the Government have television development under review and a statement will be made shortly.

Miss Ward: Would I be right in assuming from that answer that the North-East Coast would have priority even over sponsored television?

Mr. Gammans: I think the hon. Lady had better await the statement. She has already got television on the North-East Coast.

B.B.C. Capital Expenditure

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what capital expenditure has been authorised for the British Broadcasting Corporation for the financial years 1951–52 and 1952–53; and what capital expenditure is estimated for the financial year 1953–54.

Mr. Gammans: Authorisations are for calendar years. For 1951 and 1952 the figures were £18 million and £2 million, respectively. I regret that I cannot give a figure for the current year since the programme is subject to review.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend give some indication, because surely the plans must have been laid and the equipment ordered for capital expenditure in the current year?

Mr. Gammans: I have just told the House that I hope soon to make a statement on the future television policy of the Government, and that must affect the amount of money which the B.B.C. will be allowed to spend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Stamp Books

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the new books of stamps containing those of the new reign will be available; and how many are being printed each month of each variety.

Mr. Gammans: Five shilling books containing l½d. and 2½d. stamps of the new reign have been on sale at post offices since 12th May: the 2s. 6d. books will be available at some offices this week and at others shortly afterwards. The May edition of the new books will comprise about 1,750,000 of the 2s. 6d. variety and about 1,300,000 of the 5s. The June edition of the 2s. 6d. books will be about 3 millions. The next edition of the 5s. books will be for July and about 1½ millions will be printed.

Mr. Freeman: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the book will contain all stamps of the new reign, and whether any are available now, and, if so, whether they are being issued through all the main post offices?

Mr. Gammans: The present books of stamps are mixed, containing both old and new reign stamps.

Trade Union Recognition

Mr. McLeavy: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether his noble Friend the Postmaster-General has yet taken a decision upon the claims of the Post Office breakaway unions for recognition; and if he will make a statement thereon.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir, but he hopes to be able to do so shortly and to make a statement.

Mr. McLeavy: Can the Minister say how long we may have to wait for the report?

Mr. Gammans: I hope not long after the House has reassembled.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman and his friends were adamant about this matter when they sat on this side of the House, will he make sure that before giving the decision of the Committee the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been consulted?

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of order. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the use of the words "breakaway unions" in this Question. Surely this union is not entitled to be abused in a Question. This is a term of reprobation against the union, and I would submit that this union is entitled to ask for recognition without having terms of obloquy attached to it in this way.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, in arriving at your conclusion on this question, bear in mind that this term was used in a Motion which was put before the House by the Conservative Party when they were in opposition?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the term "breakaway unions" implies anything bad. It merely denotes that members of a union are not content to remain members of that union.

London-Caracas Air Mail Service

Mr. Marquand: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how long it takes an air mail letter, posted in London, to reach Caracas, Venezuela.

Mr. Gammans: Three to four days from the latest time of posting at London Chief Office.

Mr. Marquand: Is that the best performance or is it the average performance? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that information given to me suggests that British exporters are at a serious disadvantage in competing with United States exports in this valuable market because of the slowness of communications?

Mr. Gammans: I know there have been a number of complaints recently, but this is not entirely under our own control. These air mails go via New York, where they have to be handled by the American postal authorities, and therefore the extent to which we can hurry things up must necessarily be limited.

Stamp Machines (Booklets)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when it is proposed to sell 1s. books of stamps through special machines for this purpose; when these smaller books will also be on sale over the counter; when and at which post offices they will be available; and if he will ensure that Newport is included in this list.

Mr. Gammans: Experimental machines for selling 1s. booklets of stamps are already on trial at a number of offices throughout the country and one will be installed at Newport Head Office when the present reconstruction work is completed. We do not at present intend selling these booklets at counters, but this and other questions arising out of the experiment are being considered and I will make a further statement in due course.

Mr. Freeman: Will the new books of stamps contain the new reign stamps, with pictures of the Queen?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, they will.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

New Directories

Sir H. Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements he proposes to make to enable residents of Croydon to be able to dial telephone numbers in the London postal region when the new system of telephone directories comes into force.

Mr. Gammans: Business subscribers will get, in addition to their own county directory, the four volumes covering the London postal area and also the classified directory which will continue to cover the same area as at present. Residential subscribers who ask for the four London directory volumes will receive them free of charge.

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent the new telephone directories for the Greater London area will enable users of the telephone to find the common names, like Jones and Robinson, more easily.

Mr. Gammans: The most common name in the London telephone directory is Smith. There are nearly 40 pages of them in the present book. In the new directory for the London postal area there will be about 25 pages of Smiths, and not more than five pages in any of the new outer London directories. Incidentally, the Williams are now overhauling the Jones as one of the most common names in the Directory.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can my hon. Friend tell us what other steps he contemplates taking in this matter? For instance, does he intend to try and arrest this Welsh invasion of the Metropolis?

Mr. Gammans: As the House is aware, not all the Williams's in this country come from Wales, but it is certainly not part of my responsibility to suggest that Welshmen should stay in Wales. My hon. and gallant Friend may be comforted by the fact, however, that the Smiths, whom perhaps we may regard as Anglo-Saxons, are the most prolific family in the country and are increasing far more rapidly than any other.

Mr. C. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that it was the English who invaded the Metropolis and not the Welsh?

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Williams's are the most numerous in this House?

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, when introducing the new telephone directories, he will arrange that subscribers in the London postal area are automatically issued with the telephone directory of the county area nearest to them, so that under this arrangement subscribers in North-West London will receive the North-West Middlesex telephone directory in which Edgware and Elstree appear, with which they have close association.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. The community of interest varies considerably between the fringe areas of the London postal area and the neighbouring counties, but any subscriber who wants the directory of a neighbouring county area or for that matter any other county area can have them if he asks for them.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that where the boundary between the London postal area and the county area runs through the middle of a borough, grave inconvenience will be caused if the two halves of the area are not included in the London directory, and would he therefore inquire as to whether Edgware and Burnt Oak should not be included with the other parts of Hendon?

Mr. Gammans: The difficulty is that the boundary must be drawn somewhere. I do not think the inconvenience is as great as my hon. Friend suggests, because any subscriber who is in the county area can have all the four London volumes, if he asks for them, free of charge.

Capital Investment

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the limitations on capital and material which prevent an adequate provision of telephone facilities for the present list of applicants.

Mr. Gammans: The limitation is what the nation can afford. Since the war, national investment, in which the Post Office can have only its appropriate share, has been limited by the resources available, both financial and material. There are many claims on material resources, including those of defence and a rising level of exports. Financial claims are limited by the nation's capacity to accumulate savings.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what amount of the capita] investment programme of the Post Office is being made available for the provision of telephones in the current financial year.

Mr. Gammans: About £38,750,000. This figure, like those given in my reply of 11th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), represents expenditure on local and junction cables, exchange equipment, buildings, and on connecting up subscribers and telephone kiosks; it excludes expenditure on the development of the trunk service.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Member say whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remove the ban on the building of new exchanges which largely accounts for the present shortage?

Mr. Gammans: No, but we have reduced the waiting list by over 50,000 in the past year.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General from time to time acquaint the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the tremendous pressure exerted upon Members of this House by constituents on the delay that has occurred in granting them these facilities?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Member that the Post Office is not more slow than any other Government Department in pressing its claims on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Meopham

Sir R. Acland: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he has considered the delay experienced by those wanting telephone installations in the area of Meopham, Kent; and if he will take steps to see that the delay is reduced.

Mr. Gammans: Of the 23 people who are waiting in this area seven will be connected in the near future. I much regret the delay in meeting these applications but with the many other demands on our resources I cannot say when the waiting list will be cleared.

Sir R. Acland: There are 16 people in this area who cannot be offered any sure date. Will the Minister do his best to grant them facilities?

Mr. Gammans: I try to do my best all over the country, but we have a waiting list of over 400,000 who can only be satisfied by large capital expenditure which the Post Office has not got at its disposal.

Electronics Industry (Defence Programme)

Mr. Grey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how far the demands of the defence programme upon the electronics industry still imposes limitations upon the rate of provision of telephones and the extension of British Broadcasting Corporation's services.

Mr. Gammans: The demands of the defence programme upon the electronics industry do not directly limit the provision of telephones nor are they the only factor in determining the extension of the B.B.C.'s services.

London Telecommunications Region

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones were outstanding in the London Telecommunications Region on the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Gammans: One hundred and twenty thousand two hundred and seventy-six applications were outstanding at the 31st March, 1953, including 30,903 in course of provision or under investigation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of that enormous figure, can the Assistant Postmaster-General say, now that traffic congestion makes it more difficult for Londoners to visit each other, that he will at least give some priority in telephones so that they can talk to each other, or is it his intention to force Londoners to write more letters and buy more stamps?

Mr. Gammans: No, we have reduced the waiting list in the past year by the largest figure for many years.

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones on the Brixton Exchange were outstanding at the end of 1951, 1952 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Gammans: 1,426 applications were outstanding at 31st December, 1952, compared with 1,403 12 months earlier, but the number has now been reduced to 1,034.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for this welcome improvement, may I ask him now to say whether the extensions to the Brixton Exchange which were to be put into effect by the end of 1952 will, by the end of 1953, result in a really substantial decrease in the numbers outstanding?

Mr. Gammans: There will be a decrease but not as large a decrease as I should have liked, because the limiting factor there is not exchange equipment but the shortage of line equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Guided Missiles (Operational Responsibility)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air what branch of the Royal Air Force will operate the guided missiles the responsibility for which was recently transferred from the Army to the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): In this, as in other matters connected with operations, the main responsibility will rest with the General Duties Branch. Further study, and actual experience of handling these weapons, will be necessary before it is possible to define with precision the role which each branch will play when these weapons come into service. In view of the complex technical problems involved, however, the part played by the Technical Branch must be of great importance.

Mr. de Freitas: Would the Minister remind the Medical Branch that the very high physical qualities that are necessary for fighting or for flying an aircraft are not necessary in push-button warfare, whether the officer is in the Air Force or in the artillery?

Mr. Ward: We will certainly bear that point in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Does this transfer mean that the Army is to have nothing to do with the use of guided missiles as and

when necessary? Does it mean that the Royal Air Force is to have the exclusive right to handle such weapons? Has not the hon. Gentleman heard of co-ordination in the Services?

Mr. Ward: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, remember that my noble friend the Minister of Defence said in another place that surface-to-air guided missiles are complementary to fighter aircraft and operate in the same air space, and must, therefore, be under the same ground control.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that guided missiles are also complementary to anti-aircraft devices of the conventional pattern?

Mr. Ward: Of course, but these new weapons will be integrated into the air defence system as a whole.

Mr. Snow: In the meantime, is the Minister aware that the many thousands of technicians—men and women—in the Army who are at present engaged in anti-aircraft are in a state of great despondency over this transfer of responsibility, with which, technically, we may not disagree? Are the Army doing anything to suggest that they should, or to encourage them to, take over equivalent appointments on a territorial basis under Air Force auspices?

Mr. Ward: I am not sure what approach has been made to them, but I will look into the point.

Squadron Standards (National Emblems)

Mr. Gower: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air why no Welsh emblem appears on any flags of the Royal Air Force although English, Scottish and Irish emblems are incorporated.

Mr. Ward: The only Royal Air Force flags to display national emblems are the Squadron Standards. The present design of these follows heraldic tradition and precedent. My noble Friend is, however, considering whether it would be possible to include a Welsh emblem in the design of future standards.

Mr. Gower: I wish to thank the Minister for that reply.

Flying School Instructors (Employment)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a further statement on arrangements to enable flying instructors, displaced by the closure of flying schools, to find alternative employment as pilots.

Mr. Ward: Up to date, 50 flying instructors have been offered appointments in the Royal Air Force as pilots and a further 22 commissions in the ground branches. About 30 more have received offers of employment as civil pilots. Arrangements have been made in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Labour and Civil Aviation that, where such offers depend upon the instructor obtaining additional qualifications, financial help will be given to him during his training course. Many others have found posts elsewhere, and we have given them all the advice and assistance we could.
Inevitably, there are cases where instructors have not so far found alternative employment. Some of these have applied to the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund for help, and the Air Council has made a special grant of £2,500 from R.A.F. Prize Money in recognition of what the Fund is doing for them.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is my hon. Friend aware that this information will give general satisfaction to all sides of the House, especially to those of us who have sought for so long to try to get these men a fair deal?

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that although it will give some satisfaction, there are still many of these officers who are unemployed and that there is valuable experience in these men; and will he do everything he possibly can to make use of them?

Mr. Ward: indicated assent.

Aircraft Noise, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he is aware that the continuous noise from low-flying jet aircraft in the Bristol area is affecting the nerves and health of many people; and if he will take effective steps to abate this nuisance.

Mr. Ward: Most of the noise has, I think, been made by jet fighter squadrons temporarily attached to Filton from the 2nd Tactical Air Force in Germany. It will be possible to move them away from Filton after the beginning of next month.

Mr. Awbery: While I am grateful to the Minister for the information that this is only of a temporary character, can we have an assurance that this will not be used as a bombing base in the way that some of the aerodromes are at present being used?

Mr. Ward: I cannot give any definite and absolute guarantee about the future, but we will certainly do our best to keep that matter in mind.

Mr. Hastings: Is any investigation being carried out by the Minister's Department as to the effect on the mind, body and hearing of continuous noise of this description?

Mr. Ward: Of course, that is a matter for the medical people and, I have no doubt, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I will look into the point.

Civilian Substitution Officers

Mr. Turner-Samuels: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that under the present substitution scheme there is discrimination between established and unestablished civilian substitution officers of the same grade for superannuation purposes and otherwise; and whether he can hold out any prospect of establishment for the 24 substitution officers who still remain unestablished.

Mr. Ward: I am glad to say that the establishment of these officers has now been agreed in principle. There are some formalities to go through, but I hope that all those who are acceptable to the Civil Service Commissioners will be established within the next two or three months.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Can the Minister say what the position of these officers will be as regards pension?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. The majority of these officers are likely to qualify for pension, and, of course, we shall look sympathetically at any individual case.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopters

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what consideration has been given to the operation of amphibious helicopters between London Airport and the River Thames between London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I have examined a proposal on these lines with British European Airways, but have concluded that the limited value to be obtained from such experimental operations with existing types of fully developed helicopters would not justify the cost to public funds.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend say exactly what the difficulties are, because the use of such aircraft would do away with the use of one particular area, be it the South Bank or anywhere else, and thereby diminish the noise, as it would be distributed up and down the river, and all that is necessary is a series of piers?

Mr. Profumo: That is not quite the problem. We have as much experimental information as, I think, we can get on single-engined helicopters, and until there is a development of the twin-engined helicopter it would only be a waste of public funds to carry on this sort of service.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what progress has been made in recent months in selecting sites for helidromes in London in connection with helicopter passenger travel.

Mr. Profumo: There have been further discussions, which are continuing, with the London County Council regarding the provision of a site suitable for a temporary airstop on the South Bank.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the fact that there has been excellent progress with the Bristol 173 for passenger services, cannot we see a little more evidence of intelligent anticipation and not wait until these things are actually flying about before sites are decided upon?

Mr. Profumo: It would be a considerable time before it would be possible to operate scheduled helicopter services to city centres. I assure the hon. Member,

and, indeed, the House, that the development of a suitable airstop in the centre of London is being considered with this factor in mind.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in a few days' time the London—Birmingham helicopter service will again be started? Could he not obtain valuable data from this service in the matter of a central city site, notably in Birmingham?

Mr. Profumo: I should repeat that I do not believe we can get any further valuable data until we can produce the twin-engined helicopter.

Mr. Gibson: Are the sites to which the Minister referred on the old Festival site on the South Bank, on top of Waterloo Station?

Mr. Profumo: We have not got that far yet. It would be clearly impossible to decide where we should go or what sort of airstop is required until we know what sort of space is required by the twin-engined helicopter.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that the twin-engined helicopter has been experimenting in the air since February, 1952?

Mr. Profumo: It will not be until the end of this year or, possibly, the beginning of next year that B.E.A. will receive on loan from the Ministry of Supply a Bristol 173. When they have carried out their initial trials, we may be in a better position to get what the hon. Member and, I know, the whole House wish to know.

Customs Facilities, Greatham

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that, in spite of a recommendation by the Air Transport Advisory Council, endorsed by himself, for an air service between Greatham, County Durham, and Jersey, the service cannot be operated direct, because of a refusal by the Customs authorities to provide Customs clearance; and whether he will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to making it possible for his decision to be put into effect.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend approved the operation of services between Greatham and Jersey subject to such limitations as might be necessary


for Customs reasons. The company were accordingly informed in February that, in the absence of Customs facilities at Greatham, the service would have to be operated via Newcastle or some other Customs airport. As the hon. Member knows, I am discussing this matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and, as he indicated yesterday, the matter is again being considered.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only difficulty about providing on-call Customs at this aerodrome is the refusal by the Customs people to exercise this year the facilities that were granted last year; and that there are now nearly 700 provisional bookings for this service between Greatham and Jersey, and that the decision of the Customs means that they will have to fly an additional 70 miles in order to get Customs facilities?

Mr. Profumo: As the matter is to be rediscussed, I should only be prejudicing those discussions if I entered into an argument with the hon. Member now.

Mr. Marquand: Is not the cost of providing Customs facilities trifling in comparison with the disadvantage to people on Tees-side not being able to get an air service?

Mr. Profumo: It is wrong to say that they cannot get an air service. It may be more difficult for them to operate from another Customs aerodrome but this can be done, and I am pleased to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the service concerned has already started.

Financial Loans (Aircraft Security)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation is he will introduce appropriate legislation to make aircraft legal security for financial loans.

Mr. Profumo: Her Majesty's Government have in mind the desirability of introducing such legislation in connection with ratification of the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. Unfortunately there are formidable legal problems involved, and these are at present being examined.

Mr. Beswick: As this matter has been on the stocks for some time, and as it is holding up the development of aviation

in many areas, and as I think that such legislation would be non-controversial so far as the House is concerned, would the Parliamentary Secretary see if he can hurry it up?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir.

MiG FIGHTERS (SURRENDER REWARDS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money has been claimed and how much has been paid by the United Nations Command in pursuance of its 100,000 dollar offer to MiG fighter pilots in Korea who desert, bringing their fighter planes with them; and for how long that offer is to remain open to them.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Member's Question, the answer is, so far as I am aware, None, Sir. With regard to the second part, I know of no time limit.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise the remarkable synthesis between this Question and the latest news that another MiG has reached the West? Is that latest news true, and, if so, will the pilot of that machine get the 100,000 dollars and the other rewards?

Mr. Lloyd: I am told that the information which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just suggested in the middle part of his supplementary question is correct.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not better that this episode, like the Prime Minister's declaration that it is better to be bribed than to be killed, should be forgotten as soon as possible?

PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENTS (DISPATCH TO WASHINGTON

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken, other than through diplomatic channels, to ensure that British foreign policy and recent responsible pronouncements thereon are adequately disseminated through our public relations office, or otherwise, in the United States of America.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The practice of the Foreign Office has been to telegraph to Washington and the British Information Services, New York, the full text, or if it is very long, the salient parts, of important Ministerial speeches on foreign policy with all speed as soon as an authenticated text is available. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, important speeches on foreign affairs by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition will in future be cabled immediately and in full.
Distribution by the British Information Services in the United States normally consists of issuing the text by means of a Press release and delivering it to leading editors and commentators both of Press and radio.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that our information service in the United States has suffered at all through any drastic economies? Secondly, are there public relation offices in most of the main States, including the State of Wisconsin?

Mr. Lloyd: The reply to the question as to whether our information services in the United States have suffered by reason of economies is that that is not so; in fact, the amount of money spent there has been increased.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question about whether there is a special office in Wisconsin?

Mr. Lloyd: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since information to Europe is also of great importance, are similar arrangements being made for the Continent?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to consider that suggestion.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Prime Minister has told us that the text of speeches by himself and the Leader of the Opposition will be sent immediately to Washington. Is there any reason why similar treatment should not be meted out to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is in charge of the Foreign Office at the moment.

Mr. Bowles: Who will decide which are the important speeches made in this House which are to be sent to America? Many Back Benchers think that their speeches are the most important.

Mr. Lloyd: Naturally that is a matter for judgment. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be decided by the Minister in charge of the Foreign Office for the time being.

PROTESTANT MISSIONARY, UBATE (ATTACK)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received further information about the recent attack upon Mr. Heap in Ubate, Colombia.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador has confirmed that Mr. Heap's injuries were fortunately not serious. The Colombian Government informed Her Majesty's Ambassador on 18th May that the Governor of the Department concerned had given instructions that the investigation should be pursued with energy and speed. Numerous depositions have already been taken but it may be some little time before the investigation is completed.

Sir R. Acland: Could I ask the Minister a rather different question? From time to time complaints are made—and quite properly—about the ill-treatment of Christians, often Roman Catholic Christians, in other parts of the world. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider putting to those who complain the whole sequence of events in Colombia? Many of us feel that this sequence could be brought to an end almost overnight if information was sent from the right quarter to that effect.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Member may be being a little optimistic in that matter, but I will certainly consider his suggestion.

Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any suggestion of misbehaviour on the part of Mr. Heap, and, if not, will he do everything that is possible to see that the rights of British subjects in foreign countries are safeguarded?

Mr. Lloyd: We will certainly endeavour to do the latter. So far as the earlier part of the supplementary question is concerned, I think it is better to wait until we have the result of the investigation.

B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES (SOVIET JAMMING)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which overseas services of the British Broadcasting Corporation are at present subject to jamming by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the satellite countries.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No change has occurred since my hon. Friend's reply to a similar Question on 4th February.

Mr. Davies: May I take it from that reply that there has been no decrease whatever in the jamming of our services to the Soviet Union and satellite countries? If that is so, have any representations been made in the light of the somewhat changed situation?

Mr. Lloyd: There has been no decrease. I should like to have notice of the further question about representations.

EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the conversations he held with the Prime Minister of France when he was in London, concerning British association with the European Defence Community; and whether he will now also publish the subsequent interchange of correspondence on this topic.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answer which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. Member on 20th April, nor to what I said in the foreign affairs debate on 11th May.

Mr. Wyatt: But as the Prime Minister has been giving me that sort of answer

since last February, is it not time that he brought this secret diplomacy to an end? Is he aware that the French have a very strong feeling that he himself has badly let them down, because he made a great many promises before he became Prime Minister about the co-operation which we would have with the European Army, all of which he has broken? Does he not realise that the European Defence Community will founder completely unless we make a better gesture than we have so far made to the French?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that questions, including supplementary questions, should be asked primarily for the purpose of gaining information and not for self-advertisement.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister not aware that as he never gives us any information it is sometimes necessary to give him some information in order to jolt him out of his apathy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Prime Minister is presumably proposing to the French that we should undertake obligations towards the E.D.C., and since that is a matter on which this House must ultimately decide, would it not be an advantage that we should now have the information about what the Government propose?

The Prime Minister: I said in my speech on Monday week all that I think it necessary or desirable to say at the present moment.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does the Prime Minister remember the occasion in Strasbourg—I remember it, as I was there—when he made his great speech about a European Army? Does he think the spirit and text of that speech is consistent with the policy being followed by him as Prime Minister? Does he not remember also that when he was in opposition he used Question time for his own advertisement as much as anybody else?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question which gave him the opportunity of indulging in the art of tu quoque was the only part to which he really attached importance.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will, at an early date, invite President Eisenhower to London so that he may hold personal talks with him in order that the present differences of approach between Britain and the United States of America towards the international situation may be reconciled.

The Prime Minister: Few things would give more pleasure to Her Majesty's Government and the British people than that President Eisenhower should visit us in this Island, as he so often did during the war, and I earnestly hope that this great event may occur during his tenure of the Presidency of the United States. If I thought that there was any chance of his being able to detach himself in the near future from the great responsibilities he has—[HON. MEMBERS: "McCarthy."] I did not drag him in. I think it is a great mistake, if I may say so as I am interrupted, to mix up the head of the great American Republic with a politician or a member of Congress in that country. I think separation should be observed in view of the entirely different character of the offices held by the parties concerned. May I read on with this rather important Question—or important answer?
If I thought there was any chance of his being able to detach himself at this moment from the great responsibilities he has so recently assumed, I should certainly make the necessary submission to the Queen so that an invitation could be sent from one head of a State to another.
I certainly do not feel that differences of view or emphasis between Britain and the United States at the present time would in any way require or justify a procedure of such magnitude. If and when the President of the United States visits Great Britain I trust the cause will be the vast, vital body of agreement throughout the English-speaking world and not be occasioned or occupied by discussion of the kind of divergencies of method which naturally arise between friends and allies when faced with practical issues of a complex and changing character.

Mr. Wyatt: If the Prime Minister does not mind my asking him a supplementary

question since he seems rather to resent it, may I ask whether he does not think that it would be an essential preliminary to there being a great Power conference for him first of all to have talked to President Eisenhower so that the very obvious disagreements that we are having at the moment, over our policy in the Far East in particular, should be resolved before we met the Russians?

The Prime Minister: I really think the Government of the day must have some latitude in these matters.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Prime Minister considering what has been put to him many times from this side of the House —that on matters of very great urgency which affect the peace of the world the machinery of consultation between the United States and other members of the United Nations is not at present working well, and has he proposals for its improvement?

The Prime Minister: I think it is working very well. I have seen a lot of it and I think our relations are as intimate and as friendly as they have ever been, but there are some difficulties caused by differences of opinion—quite reasonable differences of opinion—which have to be settled, and I am sure that they can be settled in the regular way especially in view of the personal friendly contacts which exist.

CORONATION (MALTA REPRESENTATION)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to resolve the difficulties which may prevent Malta participating in the Coronation.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister why arrangements were not made for the Prime Minister of Malta to be represented at the Coronation with the Prime Ministers of the other member countries of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to complaints by the Prime Minister and Government of Malta, as a result of which that Government have decided not to be represented at the Coronation; and if he will make a statement on the subject.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure all Members of the House, would be very sorry indeed if Malta were not represented at the Coronation, particularly in view of the Island's imperishable war record which the late King recognised by the award of the George Cross. I have therefore sent a message to the Prime Minister of Malta saying how much Her Majesty's Government hope that he and his wife will be present. I have made certain suggestions to him designed to accord him all dignity and respect as the representative of the George Cross Island. I have not yet received a final reply from Dr. Borg-Olivier, but I hope to be able to tell the House what has been arranged before we separate for Whitsun.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply will give the greatest satisfaction in view of the fact that it would be a tragedy if Malta could not take part in the celebrations?

Mr. H. Morrison: May I supplement that by asking the Prime Minister if he is aware that we on this side of the House are encouraged by his reply? This is an occasion when it is desirable that nobody should manifest any undue stickiness on the matter, and I am glad that the Government have rather modified the line they had taken. We all very much hope that this Island for which we have a deep respect as a result of its war record will be able to be represented at the Coronation.

The Prime Minister: I am making every effort in that direction.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will give a great deal of satisfaction to those people who realise that the dignity, traditions and importance of this gallant George Cross Island are not to be measured by its size?

The Prime Minister: We sometimes have used that argument in our own case.

Mr. Wyatt: Would not it be appropriate if on this occasion all the Prime Ministers and chief Ministers of territories within the Commonwealth should proceed together in the same part of the procession, because this would illustrate the great diversity and variety of the

Commonwealth and show that we recognise that the Commonwealth is a changing and evolving entity?

The Prime Minister: I think that shows how imperfectly the hon. Member understands the complexity of these problems.

ATOM BOMB, KOREA (GENERAL TWINING'S STATEMENT)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official statement of General Twining, the American Chief of Air Staff, that the use of the atomic bomb in Korea was being discussed; and whether he will give an assurance that, in such consultations, the United Kingdom Government will oppose its use.

The Prime Minister: I am informed that in a Press interview at Milwaukee on 16th May General Twining, in reply to a question about the possible use of the atomic bomb in Korea, said that all possible means of deciding the Korean problem were being continually discussed and there was no particular emphasis on any one weapon, method or means of solving this problem. The general made it clear that decisions about national policy were made by the President and that he was not himself advocating any change. The final part of the Question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Prime Minister observed that recently generals, field marshals, air marshals, admirals and all the rest of them have been having Press interviews and Press conferences and making conflicting statements, a record of which I should be very glad to send him, and is not it about time that they stopped giving these Press interviews and confined themselves to the organisation of defence?

The Prime Minister: If it were decided to make new decisions of this kind about what speeches may be made by officers, retired or otherwise, or in special employment under N.A.T.O.—if a decision were taken in that sense by Her Majesty's Government, it obviously could only apply to Her Majesty's subjects and would not be capable of being made applicable by us to representatives of other countries.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that, in view of the deep concern that most people feel at the possible advent of atomic warfare, officers or anyone else in responsible positions should be extremely careful before they use language which indicates that consideration might be given to the possible use of atom bombs?

The Prime Minister: I do not get up in the morning and run about looking for opportunities to say critical things about United States' generals or the generals of any other friendly Power.

Mr. Henderson: Surely, the Prime Minister is being most unfair? Is it not a fact that my Question merely asks whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn, as a question of fact, to a statement reported in many of the leading newspapers? Why does the Prime Minister suggest that it is criticising someone if one asks for information, especially on a matter like this?

The Prime Minister: I rather gathered that that was the object of the Question.

Mr. Henderson: No.

The Prime Minister: If I heard him aright, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that some protest should be made against this language.

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's previous reply that, because we are only associated with N.A.T.O. in the general conception of defence in the West and elsewhere, we have no further responsibilities, and need not take any notice of what our principal military representatives in N.A.T.O. are saying? Is that the doctrine which the Prime Minister is now laying down?

The Prime Minister: I really cannot attempt to regulate what is said by generals in the armies of other Powers.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to suggest that this Question is directed to criticising certain officers—

Mr. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives notice to raise this

matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, and while, with due respect, Privy Councillors on the other side of the House are entitled to bob up and put supplementary questions, would it not be appropriate for an hon. Member on this side of the House to have an opportunity of asking a question?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must leave the selection of Members to me. After all, this is the Question of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).

Mr. Henderson: May I again ask the Prime Minister whether he would take it from me that I am not seeking to criticise any senior officer of the United States? May I ask him whether he would make it clear, on behalf of the Government and the people of this country, that we will not tolerate the use of the atom bomb for the purpose of carrying on the United Nations war in Korea?

The Prime Minister: I think that question goes far beyond the original Question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to say that we will not tolerate the use of this particular weapon—

Mr. Henderson: Oppose—

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the words "not tolerate"; I clearly heard them. I do not think that is really the way in which this grave question should be dealt with. No one can really be absolutely clear at any moment what are the deep and profound motives in his spirit and heart which prompt him to take up a particular intellectual position. Therefore, I am not able to answer why I do not think so on the spur of the moment, but I certainly do not think that this would be a wise act at the present time at all, and I do not think there is any idea of it being done; but if Members of Parliament and people in responsible positions are going to look about in the newspapers to find out statements made by United States generals or air marshals and then ask Questions in the House in the hope of extracting some condemnation of them from the Government, I think they are making mischief between countries and inviting the Government to go far beyond their own responsibilities.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Prime Minister why he wants to treat my right hon. and learned Friend in this way? Is he not aware that my right hon. and learned Friend is a respected Member of this House, courteous and friendly at all times? Why does he want to treat him as if he were an aggressive State?

The Prime Minister: No. Perhaps I might make the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little more popular below the Gangway if I did.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Miss Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the negotiations with Iceland.

At the end of Questions:—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to answer Question No. 53.
Her Majesty's Government have throughout been convinced that a continuation of the dispute over the new fishery limits drawn by the Icelandic Government in their regulations of 19th March, 1952, could do nothing but harm to the interests of both countries.
Even before the introduction of the Icelandic Government's regulations, Her Majesty's Government sought to prevent the development of just such a dispute as has arisen. In January, 1952, they warned the Icelandic Government that failure to negotiate an ad hoc line to take account both of British fishing interests and of the need for conservation measures would cause deep resentment both among the British trawler owners and fishermen and would risk provoking retaliatory action. The regulations were nevertheless introduced by the Icelandic Government. Since then, Her Majesty's Government have made repeated attempts to achieve a solution of the dispute which would satisfy both parties.
In an exchange of Notes between 2nd May and 18th June of last year, Her Majesty's Government sought to persuade the Icelandic Government to agree to some modifications of the new limits, which would take into account the longstanding interests of the British fishing industry. The Icelandic Government

refused, however, to consider any modifications.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary then proposed in October of last year that there should be talks between the fishing industries of the two countries without any restriction of subject. The Icelandic Government, however, refused to allow changes in their fishery limits to be so discussed. Conversations between my right hon. Friend and the Icelandic Minister of Fisheries were held in December last, but failed to find any basis for agreement upon a solution of the dispute.
Since the Icelandic Government had justified their regulations by reference to the need for conserving stocks, Her Majesty's Government proposed on 10th December, 1952, that the dispute should be treated as a conservation issue to be dealt with preferably in a technical body such as the Permanent Commission, under the 1946 Overfishing Convention. Thereupon the Icelandic Government said that they were not willing to treat the issue as one of conservation and were not prepared to abide by any recommendation made by the Permanent Commission.
Her Majesty's Government then considered a reference of these issues to the International Court at The Hague. To refer the whole dispute would be likely to involve lengthy delays. However, as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed the House on 29th April, we proposed that one clear-cut issue capable of quick decision, namely, the baseline drawn across Faxa Bay, should be referred to the Court. On 18th February the Icelandic Government replied that they were ready to consider Her Majesty's Government's proposal only on condition that they received a definite guarantee that the British fishing industry's ban on landings of Icelandic fish in this country would be lifted as soon as agreement on the terms of reference to the Court had been reached.
At a meeting on 25th March between the British fishing industry and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, accompanied by my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the industry refused to give an undertaking about lifting their ban, and insisted that


the matter should be settled by the Permanent Commission set up under the Overfishing Convention.
Her Majesty's Government thereupon explained to the Icelandic Government that they were not in a position to give the desired undertaking on behalf of the industry. In a further note of 24th April the Icelandic Government felt unable to add anything to the reply which they had made on 19th February. Her Majesty's Government can only regard this as equivalent to a refusal of their proposal, and have so informed the Icelandic Government. It has further been made clear to them that Her Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to offer any further suggestions for a settlement of the dispute. They are of course willing to consider at any time any constructive proposals which may be put forward by the Icelandic Government with a view to resolving a situation which threatens to impair the traditional friendly relations between the two countries, which are now united by common membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I would add that Her Majesty's Government have themselves taken the initiative in raising in the Permanent Commission under the Overfishing Convention the question of conservation of fish stocks in the neighbourhood of Iceland. At the first meeting of the Commission early this month all member countries, including, of course, Iceland, agreed that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea should be asked to study the fisheries in northern waters generally, including those in the neighbourhood of Iceland, and to give the Commission their advice. While this action does not bear directly upon the dispute, I hope, none the less, that it will prove a useful and helpful step in this unfortunate situation.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say where he thinks we go from here in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that whereas Her Majesty's Government have put forward suggestion after suggestion, we had hoped that now Iceland would consider in this interval some opportunity of putting forward constructive suggestions of their own.

Mr. G. Brown: Is it not absolutely intolerable that since the Government pro-

posed reference to the International Court, and since the Icelandic Government were prepared to accept the proposal if the status quo were restored, Her Majesty's Government have merely said that since the trawler owners will not accept it, we can do no more? Do not the Government think that they have some obligations in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: It is quite beyond the power of this Government or any other Government by Act of Parliament to force fishermen to go to sea.

Mr. Brown: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that at no stage have the Government been in command of this. Is it not true that they have merely acted as a post-box between the trawler owners of Grimsby and Hull and the Icelandic Government? Why do not the Government take steps to bring the position to a head, and is not reference to the International Court the right way of going ahead with it?

Mr. Lloyd: Far from the suggestion that the Government have only acted as a post-box being true, I would point out that it is not only the trawler owners who are concerned, but the skippers and the people who go to sea. It is also a question of the fish merchants and the housewives. One other factor in the situation is that there have been very large quantities of fish landed in this country during this period which British fishermen have had some difficulty in disposing of. However, the position of the Government is that we would have liked this question to go to the International Court on the issue of the Faxa Bay baseline, but we are not prepared to introduce legislation to compel trawler owners, skippers or fish merchants to take off the ban.

Mr. T. Williams: In view of all the circumstances, ought we not to go direct to the International Court? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether or not the Icelandic Government have yet ratified and are applying the Convention on over-fishing passed by the body to which he referred in 1946?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as the question of reference to the International Court is concerned, we cannot take it there by ourselves because the Icelandic Gov-


ernment have not signed the requisite clause. We can only go by agreement. With regard to the question of the whole dispute going to the International Court, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that even in the Norwegian case where both parties were agreed to go, the proceedings took nearly two and a half years. In this case, I think they would take even longer, and, therefore, we wish to find a quicker and simpler solution than that. With regard to the question of conservation, it is true that the Icelandic Government are parties to the Convention.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the prevailing conditions, will not the Government give renewed and urgent consideration to the question of protecting the Moray Firth from the depredations of foreign trawlers, including Icelandic trawlers, because meanwhile it is unilateral action on the other side, and we are taking no steps to protect our own spawning grounds?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that my hon. Friend has introduced a very relevant factor, but we do not want to be driven into a position where we have to compete in restrictions of this sort.

Mr. G. Brown: Does not that make it all the more important that we should persuade the owners to stop holding up the reference of this point to the International court? It is the only way in which we shall get out of the difficulty without retaliatory action of that kind.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should seek to persuade the trawler owners. He must have noticed that in my statement I said that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the trawler owners and the representatives of the other interests concerned. As far as persuasion is concerned, that has certainly been done, but we are not prepared to coerce them.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, in view of the fact that the Icelandic Government say that it concerns the conservation of fish, whether the banned part is being fished by Icelandic trawlermen whereas our fishermen are banned?

Mr. Lloyd: They are also banning their own trawlermen. There is the

question of building up an inshore fishing industry within the screen of this regulation. Before this dispute arose we pointed out to the Icelandic Government that this is exactly the situation which would arise if we did not try to reach agreement between ourselves.

NIGERIA (KANO RIOTS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mrs. WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has about the recent disturbances at Kano; and if he is satisfied that proper arrangements are made for the holding of meetings by persons who do not necessarily share the views of the ruling authorities.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I will now answer Question No. 80.
Serious rioting, the exact origins of which are not yet clearly established, broke out at Kano on 16th May, after the Native Authority had cancelled all permits for political meetings in view of prevailing tension. The rioting was largely confined to the strangers' quarter outside the city walls and did not spread to other parts of the Region. Originally the main participants in the riots appear to have been lawless hooligans, but the fighting soon took on an inter-tribal character, with Northerners fighting Southerners. Some of the rioters were equipped with firearms.
Following a curfew on 16th May the fighting died down but broke out anew on the following day. Substantial reinforcements of police and troops were flown to Kano that day and a state of emergency was proclaimed throughout the Region the following day, the 18th. My latest information is that the situation is now well in hand and the opposing factions have been separated by a barbed wire barrier. Casualties among the rioters according to latest reports total 43 killed and 204 injured. In addition three Native Authority police have been injured.
No troops have been used in action so far. Information is not available at present whether there has been significant


damage to property. I am sure that the House will join with me in deploring this savage outbreak and in enjoining restraint on all political parties and groups in Nigeria in order that an opportunity may be given to repair the damage done to Nigerian unity by this useless violence.
As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 18th March to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). But I should add that the Emergency Regulations made on 18th May apply inter alia to meetings and processions.

Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any special police precautions were taken before Sunday? Since notice of this meeting had been given and the meeting was cancelled and Kano is a well-known centre of communal dispute, I should like to know whether any special police precautions were taken in a situation which was likely to be troublesome. Secondly, as allegations are being made by the Action Group, who sent me a very long cable within the last half hour, that workers within the native administration were armed and took part in these riots, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to see that an independent inquiry is made into the circumstances?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have no information about special police precautions, but I have no doubt that the Lieutenant-Governor, who is extremely competent and who knows the situation there very well, will take all the necessary measures. With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, I have no information at the present time and I think that I had better await a further report before promising anything definite in the way of an inquiry.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Whilst agreeing at once with the Minister that we all deplore these riots and hope that there will be no repetition of them, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a full inquiry into the immediate circumstances, particularly into the arrangements which are made before a meeting? Would the right hon. Gentleman find out whether it would be possible for the

Governor to make an appeal, with which we would all like to be associated, to all leaders of parties in Nigeria at a time of political controversy to join together in appealing to their supporters to allow meetings to proceed peacefully without regrettable incidents of this kind? Do Her Majesty's Government propose at an early date to make a statement on the constitutional position and the arguments about it?

Mr. Hopkinson: I will certainly make inquiries about police arrangements and inform the House as soon as I can. As to the constitutional issue, of course there is no doubt whatever that these events had their origin in political troubles and dissensions which we so much regret and which came to a head in March. I am hoping that as a result of my own visits there and the subsequent meetings of the two Southern Houses—the meeting of the Northern House is to take place today— and of the inquiries which have been going on, we shall be able to make a full statement of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the constitutional issue in Nigeria before we rise for the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that an appeal is made to all political leaders to ensure that when they hold meetings the rival supporters do not come together?

Mr. Hopkinson: Certainly.

Mr. Tilney: Even though the recent riots tend to accelerate the centrifugal feelings of the three regions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the immense importance economically of keeping the three regions together and not letting them Balkanise themselves?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am fully aware of all these matters and hope to cover them in my statement.

Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister satisfied that there is police protection for the Moslem majority in the North?

Mr. Hopkinson: There are 17 million people in the North of whom 13 million are Moslems.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman make not merely a Departmental inquiry but a very thorough, penetrating inquiry in view of the loss of


life and certain very disturbing circumstances such as that the Lieutenant-Governor was warned five days before these riots and that members of the national administrative staff there had been given special leave so that they might attack a meeting which was being held?

Mr. Hopkinson: As soon as we have further information on these matters I have undertaken to inform the House, and I shall certainly do so. I am not aware of the fact that members of the administration were given special leave.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I have had very definite information.

Mr. Alport: In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government maintain strict impartiality in these matters, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the ex parte statements that have been made in various quarters of this House are not given more weight than they deserve?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. We have now exceeded Question Time by 35 minutes. Can we have the Ballot?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his assistance.

Mr. Dugdale: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one simple question? Can he tell us how many police there are actually available now in Kano and district and whether he is satisfied that the number is adequate?

Mr. Hopkinson: I cannot say exactly how many police are there, but there are also troops who have been flown in and we are satisfied that the number is at present sufficient.

"EMPRESS OF CANADA" (LOSS)

Mr. Bowles: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make about the public inquiry into the loss of the "Empress of Canada."

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. I have now considered the report of the preliminary inquiry into the loss of this vessel and have decided to order a formal investigation in public under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

SOLDIER'S DEATH, CHESTER

Mr. Harold Davies: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the treatment of Gunner Harrison who died in Moston Military Hospital, Chester, whom orderlies were instructed not to aid, and whether he will give this House a report.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Yes, Sir. I read reports in the Press about this case. If proved correct, the allegations made by certain witnesses would constitute a very grave charge against the hospital concerned. I have ordered an immediate inquiry into the whole matter. In the meantime I would ask hon. Members to keep an open mind about what I admit to be a most serious charge. I assure the hon. Member that I have no wish to hush this matter up and that I will give him a full and frank statement as soon as the inquiry is completed.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to the mother my sympathy in the death of this young soldier and for the added distress which the present circumstances must have brought to her.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which demonstrates openly to the House the serious view which he takes of this matter, may I ask what kind of inquiry it will be in view of the fact that every parent with a young son of 18 will be concerned whether, if that son is suffering in hospital, he might be treated as allegedly this son was treated?

Mr. Head: I have given instructions for a full and searching inquiry which will go right down to the bottom of this matter, and I assure the House that I shall give a full and frank statement in the light of that inquiry.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not have to ask the permission of hon. Members opposite to ask a question. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is to be a Departmental inquiry held in camera or whether it will be an inquiry by an independent person held in public so that the public may be fully informed?

Mr. Head: This is a matter in which the normal procedure of inquiry is best pursued. If we have a public inquiry there is always difficulty about witnesses giving evidence over certain matters. The matter is now the subject of the normal procedure of inquiry. The full facts will be put before me and I assure the House that if the hospital is to be blamed I have not the slightest intention of attempting to conceal that fact from the House.

CORONATION (MR. SPEAKER'S ATTENDANCE)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I have to inform the House that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify Her desire that at Her Majesty's Coronation in Westminster on Tuesday, 2nd June next, the House should be represented by Mr. Speaker. This intimation of Her Majesty's Pleasure means that, according to precedent, the House will dispense with going to the Abbey in its corporate capacity, and Mr. Speaker will proceed to the Abbey in State, accompanied by the Serjeant at Arms with the Mace. I therefore beg to move,
That this House, in accordance with Her Majesty's gracious intimation, doth authorise Mr. Speaker as representing this House, to attend Her Majesty's Coronation on Tuesday, Second Day of June next.

Mr. H. Morrison: The intimation from Her Majesty will have been received by both sides of the House with great pleasure and appreciation, and I am sure all of us, irrespective of party, will be most happy, Mr. Speaker, that on this great occasion you will represent the House in its corporate capacity. We are very glad about it.

Question put, and agreed to.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES, RURAL AREAS

Mr. Hurd: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, I shall call attention to the need for a more rapid extension of supplies of electricity to rural areas, and move a Resolution.

SERVICE PENSIONS

Brigadier Clarke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, I shall call attention to the question of Service pensions pre-1951, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Colonel Clarke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, I shall call attention to the need for further agricultural production, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19th May].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 6.—(EXEMPTION OF CRICKET MATCHES FROM ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "Cricket," to insert "and football."
If hon. Members are true to their constituencies today, the Government are now risking defeat on this question. Yesterday they narrowly escaped defeat by four votes, and today, if we have the loyal support of the Liberal Party, as we should have, and the support of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and of the Members for Edinburgh constituencies—because the Rangers, Glasgow Celtic, the Hibernians and other clubs are keenly interested in this matter—the Government may be defeated. Hon. Members representing large industrial areas in England also should support us on this Amendment.
As the Government are in great danger of defeat, I hope they will consider this matter, because it is rather too near the Coronation for any change to take place. Therefore, I want to avoid striking any controversial note this afternoon, and I hope the Committee will consider the matter as a non-controversial issue. Yesterday afternoon I stood with my back to the Central Hall admiring the very fine work that was being done by the workmen. While I stood there a beautiful big car rolled up, driven by a well-dressed, smart-looking chauffeur. A gentleman in the back of the car, who had been leaning back and relaxing, got out, the police saluted him and another man helped him get out the car. The gentleman was the Leader of the House.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not know why I have been dragged into this. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I was going to play football in the Abbey.

Mr. Smith: No, but wherever I go I try to draw the lessons from what I see. Fundamentally the issue behind this Amendment is this: are we all to be parts of a machine, carried about in a machine, or are we determined to remain fit men? I propose to produce evidence on a matter in which the Chancellor takes a personal interest. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and myself have received our instructions on how we must speak. I wish to quote from a letter which was sent to us by the Stoke City Football Club. It is true that, for the time being, we are in the second division, but we have produced the greatest outside right that this country has seen for many years.
The letter says:
At a meeting of my Directors on Thursday last, the recent Budget proposals were discussed, and as suggested by the Football Association, it was agreed to ask you and your colleagues to raise the matter in the House when the Finance Bill in respect of Entertainments Duty is being discussed.
I believe that had there been more time, the Members for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stockport and Blackpool would have received communications. Incidentally, where are the Blackpool Members? Surely we are entitled to call upon these Members to support this Amendment.
I want to produce evidence which will convince the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove that he should use his influence in support of this Amendment. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about football finance and management. The Football Association regulations stipulate that the maximum dividend payable in respect of any one year should be 7½ per cent. The workers would be more satisfied if that applied to the whole of industry. The same regulations apply to preference shares, mortgages and loans.
Twenty years ago Manchester United were down and out, and were saved by a public-spirited and respected man who put £40,000 into the club. In the last few years of his life that man lived to provide the people of that area with the best possible sport. Although he was a very rich man, his riches counted for very little compared with the delight he received from seeing 50,000 workmen and women from Trafford Park and the large industrial area of Manchester enjoying themselves on Saturday afternoons.
The directors are not allowed to receive any remuneration. Most of them are public-spirited gentlemen, in the best sense of the word. Mr. Gibson—to whom I have referred—Mr. Henshall and others I could mention lived just for the joy of the game and the encouragement it gave to young people by providing them with real relaxation and joy on Saturday afternoons. We all get some satisfaction from seeing thousands of people, every Saturday afternoon, deriving great relaxation and enjoyment from this very fine game.
If the Chancellor accepts my line of reasoning, why does he propose this discrimination against football on this occasion? He used to be president of a football supporters' club. If that club organise a match to finance playing fields for the Playing Fields Association or for club or benefit funds, and in order to increase the attendance they engage a professional for the afternoon, how will they be affected by this proposed discrimination?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I attended this club's annual dinner about a fortnight ago. They were gratified to know that under the terms of this Bill amateur sport is exempted from tax. They were very pleased with what I proposed and unwittingly they were very pleased with me.

Mr. Smith: That is good as far as it goes, but let us pursue the matter a little further. Let us suppose that this club, of which the Chancellor is still the president—I did not know he was still president; he must have received no remuneration or he would have had to give up his presidency when he became a Cabinet Minister—engaged a professional for a certain game. How will this Bill apply to them?
The Chancellor knows—because he has been following my point—that in order to attract large numbers of people to the game many clubs bring along some outstanding professional. According to my reading of the Bill, they will not be exempt from tax. I have before me a letter from the Kent County Football Association, and I hope that all hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies will have regard to this extract, which urges that they

… should bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the forthcoming committee stage of the Finance Bill in the House of Commons to extend to all football clubs and similar non-profit making sports organisations the exemption from Entertainments Duty which he has already granted to Cricket in its entirety as well as to amateur football and other amateur sports.
The reason they feel very strongly about this matter is because of the evidence which I shall produce later on.
4.15 p.m.
The official view of the Football Association is given in this extract from one of their documents:
These concessions"—
meaning the proposed concessions for cricket—
are patently unfair for they not only discriminate as between one sport and another, but, as in the case of Association football, there is further discrimination within the sport itself. The Football Association has an equal responsibility to both amateur and professional football, and naturally it welcomes Tax concessions which might benefit any of its members. In this case, however, it must point out that there are many professional clubs whose financial position is far less favourable than a number of amateur clubs which may benefit by the concessions. It should be remembered, too, that even these concessions as they affect amateur clubs are not as valuable as they may appear as they only apply where admission charges are more than 1s., and only a few clubs charge more than 1s. and then, usually, for seats in the stands.
But, in addition to the Entertainment Tax remaining to be paid by the professional clubs, the Treasury receives more than £20.000 a week from the Football Pools without any return to the clubs whose matches are so used.
Here is the official view of the Football League:
The League Competition has always had as its aim the provision of football matches of the highest possible standard to the public, as cheap as possible…. As a result of this steep rise in costs, the majority of clubs are now finding it increasingly difficult to pay their way, particularly having regard to the fact that attendances since 1948 have shown a gradual decline. The season just ended shows a decline of 2 million spectators compared with the previous season.
I shall risk incurring the wrath of my hon. Friends by saying that if the Chancellor will give an undertaking that during the next 12 months he will treat football as he treated cricket in the last Finance Bill debates, we shall consider withdrawing this Amendment. If not, it should result in the defeat of the Government.
I should like to have the Chancellor's replies to the questions I am now going to ask him. One Saturday night I was travelling home from Euston to Manchester, returning from the Arsenal-Blackpool match. On the way I met a respected and rich man from Manchester. He had been to Twickenham. The game to which I had been would be taxed under the Chancellor's proposals, while the rich man's game would be exempt. This is discrimination of the worst kind. An international match played at Twickenham under the auspices of the Rugby Union is exempt from tax because the players are amateurs, but an international match played at Wembley or Hampden Park—we must bring in our Scots friends—under the auspices of the English or Scottish Football Association will receive no such concession. It is difficult to see any valid reason for this discrimination. The Cup Final at Wembley is the game of the people.
Here are two or three further points made by the Football Association:
Entertainments Duty was first levied on Association football in 1916. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the Football Association that this was only an emergency measure, and he asked the Football Association to enlist the support of the clubs to carry it into effect. Now that the present Chancellor is in a position to lift this burden on sports organisations he is discriminating between clubs that employ professional players and those restricted to amateur players.
I should like the Chancellor to give us answers to these questions. In spite of all the talk about amateurs benefiting by exemption from the duty, the only benefit, according to our reading of the situation, is where admission charges are more than 1s., and I think few amateur clubs charge more than 1s., and then usually for seats in the stands. If that is correct, does it mean this? A man who travels in a bus in an industrial area to watch a football match pays 1s. in tax, while a man who travels in his own motor car, and who has had his car tax reduced, and who pays over 1s. to watch an amateur game, pays no tax. Is that discrimination? [An HON. MEMBER: "He pays Petrol Duty."] And so does the man on the bus pay Petrol Duty.
Here is a concrete anomaly. There are 800 amateur Association football clubs in Kent. Let me remind all hon. Members from Kent that there is little industry in

Kent; but a few people live there. Many of them have retired, but a few others work in the mines in the Dover area, some in transport and many in agriculture. The result is that even they require sport and relaxation in that area. There are not enough people, however, to keep the clubs going, and so the 800 clubs remain amateur. To assist the clubs in Kent each Easter two professional clubs play a game to raise funds for the amateur clubs. How will that game for those clubs be affected by this restriction? Already, according to correspondence I have received, they are in very serious difficulties because they are already in that area being charged the duty to too great an extent. Therefore, I hope that that may be looked into.
Professional cricketers receive benefits of anything between £1,000 and £14,000. They do not pay a penny in tax. Does the Economic Secretary doubt that? I would remind him that although we have admired Washbrook as much as anybody, and have played our part in our area in giving him that very fine benefit of £14,000, there are great footballers who have played as great a part in national sport and who also deserve reward. The average professional footballer's life as a professional is eight years. He can receive benefit of about £800, and he must pay tax on it. Now the Chancellor is carrying this kind of discrimination a step further, for under this Bill more discrimination is introduced. Cricket can provide sport for six hours a day and pay no tax, while football provides an hour and a half of sport and pays tax. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reconsider this matter.
We are all concerned about the development of our mechanical life. It is realised by all public-spirited people that we want to encourage people to keep as fit as they possibly can. The Duke of Edinburgh spends much of his time flying about the country appealing to organisations to raise funds in support of the National Playing Fields Association. There is no section of the community that contributes more to the development of the youth of this country than the professional footballers and the Football Association. There is no section of the


community encouraging more the education authorities and our young people, the boys and girls of the working class in particular, to take an interest in the need for the development of their physique.
Instead of discouraging them, as we are by this Bill, we ought to be encouraging them to go ahead with this kind of work. The Chancellor stresses that this is an inventive Budget. We want him to remain consistent and apply the same incentives to the encouragement of football and of the development of the physique of our people.

The Chairman: I would respectfully remind the Committee that I know that there are 15 hon. Members on the Opposition side alone who want to speak to this Amendment, and that it will facilitate all taking part in the debate if speeches are kept reasonably short.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has said, Glasgow is the centre and hub of football. It is our national game in Scotland. I, personally, cannot understand why one particular ball game ought to have preference over others. If it is true to say that cricket is the national game in England, it is also true to say that football is the national game in Scotland. On a Saturday we have in Glasgow a minimum of 100,000 people, and very often 200,000, watching first-class games alone. We have hundreds of clubs, and it is the ambition of the boys in the elementary schools some day to play for one of the first-class clubs. We do our very best to encourage that in the elementary schools. Anything which will embarrass the larger clubs will put a check on that development.
There is a feeling that there is plenty of money in football. It is quite true that there are a number of first-class clubs that have money to spare and that are wealthy, but three out of every four of the professional clubs are practically bankrupt at this time and are living on bank overdrafts or wealthy directors. Occasionally they have to sell players. Scotland exports to England in this respect. Perhaps for that reason it is a good thing we keep our football going.
I cannot see why in the world cricket is regarded as the national sport in

England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described it in these words:
Cricket occupies a special place among sports, not only as forming part of the English tradition but as a common interest helping to bind together the various countries of the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.]
There is no foreign country that plays cricket; some of the Commonwealth countries do; but they all play football.
At the moment we are trying to encourage international relations. Surely it would be better to encourage the national game of football rather than to build up cricket, which merely gives a sun tan and provides a social oasis of from five to six hours for 1s. 6d. or 2s. If there is to be preferential treatment, it should be the other way round. We ought not to tax the one which gives three times as much value. The majority in Scotland will feel a sense of injustice if only cricket is exempted from the tax.
4.30 p.m.
There seems to be a form of isolation in trying to engender the cricket spirit, because we know that overseas it is not popular. Football was played much farther back in the history of Scotland than cricket. It dates back to A.D. 700. I ask the Chancellor to look at it again from every angle, including that of equity and fair play. There is not much money in it. If it costs £36,000 per annum to give the cricketers what they are asking and £1,500,000 to give the footballer fair play, obviously there are more footballers and they have, therefore, a bigger claim on the Chancellor which he ought to consider.

Mr. Frederick Peart: Last night we discussed this question in general terms and many references were made to football. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said we were seeking certain preferential treatment for sports spectators and that as we must pay for the Welfare State, if we press our Amendment we should bear in mind alternative sources of revenue. That argument could also apply to people who support cricket. We are arguing that it is unfair to discriminate and that, if there is to be any relief, it should be generally applied to all sports. I am certain that is the view of my hon. Friends, and that is why each one of us in his own way has already pressed for reliefs for certain sports.
I want to argue the case for football, not only Association Football but also that fine game which is played in the North, Rugby League. One hon. Gentleman opposite last night made a rather priggish speech about football followers, referring to the mass hysteria of football matches. I prefer mass hysteria over Stanley Matthews to that over a demagogic political leader, and that is the lesson of our games in this country. They are a healthy outlet. While it could be argued that in these days of television we are becoming passive watchers of a machine, we must never forget that there are far more people playing games than ever before.
It is wrong to assume that because of the influence of the radio and television there is less playing of the many games which are peculiar to our country. I play many games, but I also like to watch them, and the criticism which came from the hon. Gentleman last night on this issue is answered by the fact that if one watches games one invariably tries to encourage young people to play those games. The success of a good professional Soccer or Rugby club in an area is often an inspiration to the schoolboy who watches that game and seeks, on the school playing field, to emulate his favourite. I believe that if we encourage the professional clubs their influence is felt on all games played, right down to the school level.
I appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) that it is wrong to pick out cricket and to argue that it is the traditional English game. That was answered fully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in moving the general Amendment last night. He argued that in England football has an old history and, more than that, that it is a traditional game. It is wrong to argue the merits of one game as against another. Cricket is a traditional game, Soccer is a traditional game. Rugby League in the North is also a traditional game. Often cricket spectators in the summer are football spectators in the winter, often cricket players are football players, and so it is wrong to put one game against the other as the Chancellor has done. We are asking that there shall be no discrimination.
The other main argument concerns the giving of exemptions for amateur clubs, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has argued, the minor professional clubs have been hard hit and I regard these as the backbone of our football organisation throughout the country. I was born in the County of Durham where football is virtually a religion, and there the minor clubs in the eastern part of the county who employ professionals are the very inspiration of the game. They are facing great difficulties. While that does not apply to the Arsenals, the Newcastles and the Blackpools, it does apply to our third division and minor clubs. In my constituency there is a club which has been in the third division for two years. Their administrative costs have increased and if no relief is given they will face great difficulties in the seasons ahead.
Why should we make any differentiation between a rich amateur club and a smaller professional club which is struggling? If we do, we shall have the absurd position in the F.A. Cup competition next year that in the early round of that competition two amateur clubs may be playing against each other, while a few miles away a minor professional club will be playing against an amateur club. Where can we make the distinction? It is absurd when looked at from that point of view.
Rugby League is a traditional game in Lancashire, in Yorkshire and in Cumberland. In my own constituency we have a good Rugby League side which has achieved distinction. Rugby League clubs are facing tremendous difficulties, and I have been informed that three important ones will not function next season unless they are subsidised by their parent organisation.
I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has had a memorandum from the Rugby League organisation. The Rugby Football League argued their main case on five grounds. One, in an endeavour to maintain income clubs have been forced to raise their admission charges; two, that this has led to a reduction in attendances; three, the benefit derived by the Treasury is small compared with the clubs' loss of income; four, many clubs were not financially stable even before the increased Entertainments Duty was imposed, and, five, that it will lead to a possible reduction


in the assistance for schoolboy and amateur football.
That case has been presented to the Treasury in great detail, backed up by statistical evidence from each club. The costs of Rugby League administration since 1946 have increased by 100 per cent., so that many clubs are facing great administrative difficulties. If no exemption is made, I am afraid that not only will the professional Rugby League club, like the professional Soccer club, feel the hardship, but other organisations of an amateur character, and other ancillary football organisations which are helped financially by these clubs will suffer accordingly.
It has been stressed that the Rugby League, the Football League and the Football Association give generous support to the National Playing Fields Association. I used to be a member of the executive of that organisation, and I know that their campaign for increasing the development of playing fields for all our children has been helped by the Rugby League, by the Football League and by the Football Association. In the end, that real help is actually given by each individual club. So if we are anxious to support that very important organisation, which has sought for many years to develop playing fields for our children, it is vital that we should give that necessary support to each individual football organisation.
There is one other important argument. The Chancellor stressed in his need to discriminate in favour of cricket the Commonwealth aspect. I would remind the Chancellor that the Rugby League also has branches in the Commonwealth. We have touring sides which go to New Zealand and Australia. In fact, in Australia the Rugby League attracts better gates than cricket. At Sydney, which is a great rugby centre, when a British side plays there approximately 70,000 spectators attend. Rugby League has Commonwealth links, whilst Association Football has worldwide links. Thus the argument of the Chancellor simply does not hold on the Commonwealth question. It is unfair to make a discrimination and use that argument.
In the Chancellor's speech and the definition which he applies to the question of amateurism, he argues that

we should consider the purpose of the clubs and organisations concerned. It is wrong to assume that the Football Association and the Rugby League are profit-making organisations. It is wrong to assume that the vast majority of football clubs, whether concerned with the Rugby League or soccer, are there to make profits. In nearly every case the dividends or profits made during a successful season are ploughed back into the game itself, either for improvements in the game, or extra ground, in fixtures, or improvements in grants to schoolboy organisations.
So I appeal to the Chancellor to reconsider this matter and to bear in mind that it is wrong to make a discrimination. He should look at this matter again. I hope that he will because I am certain that if no assurance is given we shall divide the Committee on this Amendment.

The Chairman: I suggest short speeches.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I shall undertake, Sir Charles, not to give cause for grumbling on account of the length of my speech. I failed to understand the indignation of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and of other hon. Members on the ground of discrimination in Entertainments Duty. We have discrimination in taxes throughout the whole range of our fiscal policy and it seems to me extraordinary that we should get so excited about discrimination in Entertainments Duty when we do not get excited about discrimination in Purchase Tax or other taxes on various types of products.
The only point I wish to make is whether discrimination is based on fair and reasonable grounds. It is on that one point that I wish to address two or three remarks to the Committee. I do not place a great deal of stock on what the Chancellor said about cricket being a traditional game or on the Commonwealth aspect of it. Surely the only test to apply is, first, whether the tax is worth collecting and, second, whether if we go on collecting it is it going to bring an end to that industry, sport or enterprise whatever it may be. I believe that the Chancellor has produced convincing figures to show that cricket simply cannot


stand the tax and that it is not worth collecting because of the small amount.
The only thing I should therefore like him to consider is whether he would apply the same discrimination test of whether it is worth while collecting the tax and whether the game can stand it or not to the small third division football clubs. I believe that the wealthy football clubs might stand the tax, but I also believe on the same ground as I have outlined, which I think is a fair one for discrimination, that he should apply that test and the same method of judgment to these third division clubs, the figures of whose losses are to my mind equally convincing as those of cricket clubs.

Mr. John Dugdale: I cannot allow to pass the remark of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who said that he had no sympathy with clubs like the Arsenal and West Bromwich Albion. I can understand that because, having visited West Bromwich once, he has since retired to the more comforting district, for him, of Kidderminster. It is not sympathy that clubs such as Arsenal and West Bromwich Albion want—they want justice.
I should like to support the argument of my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Peart) and Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in saying that these clubs do not pay vast dividends. There really is in the minds of hon. Members opposite and of some people in the country a quite wrong conception if they think that all these clubs pay big dividends and make vast profits for directors and others. They do nothing of the kind. It cannot be too often repeated that this is a fact.
I do not want to say anything more about the clubs, but I do want to say a word about the spectators. In spite of what an hon. Member opposite said yesterday, it is not yet a crime to watch a football match, and the spectators should not be treated as criminals but as people who need some help. In West Bromwich —and the same applies to many other places—people are not so well off as they were a year or two ago. People are not working overtime, they are working short time, and they have not as much money to spend on going to football matches or, indeed, on many other things.
I plead with the Chancellor not only to think about the football clubs and the

benefits that may or may not be brought to the clubs, but to think of what it means to the spectators, many of whom earn very little money and for many of whom football is their one great pleasure of the week. There is no reason why they should not have that pleasure; it is a harmless pleasure, and one that may well do them good. I hope that for their sake, as well as for the sake of the football clubs, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision and grant a reduction.

Mr. Eric Johnson: There was a great deal of force in the arguments eloquently put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). Although his political home may be in Stoke-on-Trent, I believe his football home is in Manchester. It is right that something should be said by someone who comes from the county of Lancashire which, although it may not be the first home of football, certainly provides its finest exponents at the present time.
I cannot help feeling that if it is right to exempt cricket clubs from Entertainments Duty because they find it hard to make both ends meet—I am sure we all agree with the Chancellor's action in doing that—the argument applies with equal force to football. Although most first division clubs may be doing reasonably well, I know that third division clubs and small professional clubs which are not in any of the three main divisions of the Football League are doing extremely badly and finding it very hard to make both ends meet.
My right hon. Friend has been able to say that he can afford to forgo the revenue from Entertainments Duty on cricket matches because it is very small, but he cannot forgo it in the case of football matches because then it is relatively large. That is not a very fair argument to football clubs. Why should they be penalised because they provide a more popular entertainment than cricket? Furthermore, football clubs make a very great indirect contribution to the Treasury through the medium of the football pools, which would not exist if it were not for the football clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, quite rightly, that those who advocate the


abolition of Entertainments Duty on football matches should be prepared to make a suggestion for raising the revenue from some other source. He asked whether anyone would go so far as to suggest that it could be raised by means of increased tax on the football pools. I believe there is a great deal in that suggestion. The football pool promoters can well stand it. Even if they cannot and they pass it on by reducing the dividends, the people who win will not grouse a great deal if they get a little less because some has been taken in tax, and those who lose—and they are the great majority of the customers—will not be affected in any way at all. I urge my right hon. Friend to look into the suggestion, for it is a good one.
I honestly believe that Entertainments Duty is one of the least objectionable forms of taxation. It is certainly less objectionable than Purchase Tax on necessities. However, like everyone else, I want to see all forms of taxation reduced and I welcome any step along that road. I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot reduce all taxes at once, and it says a great deal for the policy of Her Majesty's Government that he has been able to go as far as he has, and although I would not press him at present to bring football into line with cricket this year, I support the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South in the hope that my right hon. Friend will at least be able to give the Committee the assurance that he will do his best to give some help to the professional football clubs in his next Budget.

Mr. Tom Brown: We are all agreed that Entertainments Duty has been a very obnoxious tax from the beginning in 1916. For 37 years the working people, not only those who attend football matches but also those who go to cinemas and other places of amusement, have felt very keenly the levying of Entertainments Duty. No other tax has caused so much controversy and opposition since the days of John Hampden, when the Window Tax was applied.
I know that many pleas are put to the Chancellor and that it is difficult for him to respond to them all. I know that before and since his Budget representations have been made to him to concede this on the one hand and that on the other, and no doubt he has a headache, and maybe a heartache, as to what is the

best thing to do. However, on this occasion we have at least a case for the sporting world, which plays a very important part in providing relaxation, particularly in the industrial areas.
I want to put a plea to the Chancellor on behalf of the Rugby League. Rugby is not my favourite game—cricket and Soccer are my favourites—but I represent a part of Lancashire which has some very famous rugger teams, such as Wigan, St. Helens, Warrington and Bellvue Rangers. Many of these teams have found it very difficult over the last few years to remain in existence. Doncaster, Bellvue Rangers and Liverpool Stanley have been heavily subsidised by the Rugby League Association during the last few years, having found it extremely difficult to keep themselves in existence because of the incidence of taxation upon admission charges.
The Rugby League consists of 30 clubs in the three most important counties of the country, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cumberland. Rugby is a week-end sport. To a miner, particularly at week-ends, rugby is almost as good as his tobacco when he is working in the pit; he likes the enjoyment of watching a rugby match every week-end. Much has been said during the Committee stage about amateurs and professionals. There are some professional rugby footballers in all the teams in the Rugby League, but there is a vast difference between the professional in Rugby League and the professional in soccer or cricket. Many of the professionals in Rugby League are drawn from the pits; they play in the forward line; they play as professional rugby footballers on Saturday afternoon but they produce coal five days of the week.
I contend that Rugby League games, along with the other football games, should be exempt from Entertainments Duty. One of the factors which caused me to speak on this important point is that not only do the clubs create relaxation for the industrial workers in those three counties, but they also provide the wherewithal to produce the younger players who will in time play for the clubs, and that is a very important matter.
5.0 p.m.
The Rugby League Association assists many amateur and schoolboy clubs. They assist them in every conceivable


way in the form of large grants which they make for purchasing ground for playing fields and paying the rent of fields used; and it is estimated that the Rugby League assist over 20,000 young men to participate in the game of rugby in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cumberland. When a League of that character, with these ambitions and this programme, is playing a very important part in the communal and national life of sport, then I say it should be within the realm of possibility for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wipe out completely the Entertainments Duty on sport, and he should do it at once.
For 37 years this Entertainments Duty has been paid. For 37 years there have been growls and grumbles about it. and I say it is about time that we took a definite step in the direction of wiping out once and for all the Entertainments Duty which is so obnoxious to the sporting world, and also in the field of entertainment, such as theatres and cinemas. I beg of the Chancellor to respond to the very modest request contained in our Amendment.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I recognise the need for brevity on this occasion, but what we are talking about is the life and death of some of the clubs, particularly in the third division, and I feel that if the Chancellor were able to institute an inquiry into the financial circumstances, particularly of the clubs in the third division, he would find that many of them are in a very serious plight indeed. I am a kind of amateur footballer, but very much in the past, and I appreciate the action of the Chancellor in helping the amateur football clubs. On the other hand, I am most anxious, if possible, that unfair treatment should not be meted out to professional clubs as against amateur clubs in regard to Entertainments Duty.
In my own constituency—and I think it is inevitable that we should all discuss our own particular constituency in this matter—there is the famous football club of Crystal Palace. Crystal Palace have had a very difficult fight, particularly during the last few years, to keep away from the bottom of the third division, so I think it is worth five or ten minutes of the time of the Committee to refer to that particular club.
I understand that the Entertainments Duty on Association football was first levied in 1916, when the Chancellor of that time said that he was only bringing it in as an emergency measure. Since then, of course, all the clubs have cooperated in the free collection of the duty, and now that the Chancellor has reached the position of being able to lift some of this burden, it would appear that he has discriminated as between amateur and professional football clubs.
Like everyone else I am wondering about this suggestion of discrimination. There is a definite feeling that the Chancellor has broken faith with the promise that was made to the F.A. as far back as 1916, because relief, when it came, should have been of a general character. There have been 37 years of a so-called emergency duty. As has already been mentioned, the Chancellor has got a benefit of some £20,000 a week from the tax on the betting pools, which is, of course, a direct result of the efforts of the professional teams on whose behalf we are speaking this afternoon, and of whom Crystal Palace are one.
Unfortunately, many professional clubs are showing considerable trading losses each year and, as has been rightly suggested, those losses are made up by the directors of the clubs or by other supporters who may come to their assistance. There cannot be any dispute at all that the duty or the higher price of admission resulting from the paying of the duty has had a tendency to reduce the attendances at these matches where money is any sort of a controlling factor. In fact, when football matches are played there is always some duty to go to the Treasury, but often that match may result in a financial loss to the club concerned.
I am distressed to learn that the present board of Crystal Palace Football Club are involved to the extent of £80,000. This liability is entirely incurred because of their sporting instincts without any hope at all of gain to the people concerned. Furthermore, Crystal Palace, like other clubs, gives pleasure and enjoyment to the people locally who need and rightly earn the relaxation which is provided.
I feel that if only the Chancellor would treat the professional clubs the same as the amateur clubs larger attendances must be forthcoming. The clubs could then


try to get on to their feet again, so that if that cannot be done at an early date for all professional clubs it could be done, as has been suggested, with third division clubs for a start. In many cases the prices would be lower, and the attendances at matches would increase so that the whole atmosphere generally would be improved.
Finally—and I have been rather quick —I remember that last year my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) made a most impassionate plea on behalf of amateur football clubs, and in as much as he was appealing to the Chancellor as the president of one of these amateur football clubs he was on a good wicket from the start. He appealed very strongly for the amateur club obviously, at that time, bearing in mind Wimbledon. That appeal has been successful in this Budget, and I only make the point that if there were a strong enough approach to the Chancellor on this occasion it may well be that he would consider meeting this problem, if not before then, certainly in the next Budget.

Mr. John Hynd: Is the hon. Member not aware that the matter is now no longer in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but in those of his hon. Friends and himself who have spoken so fervently in favour of the Amendment, because, if they vote with us in the Lobby tonight, sport will be saved and the duty will be lost?

Mr. Harris: We on this side of the Committee are very reasonable people. Once we have stated our case we know that it will get very sympathetic consideration.

Miss Elaine Barton: I am very glad to have the chance of supporting this Amendment. I have played most games, but football is not one of them. I do not think that football is a game which necessarily shows a woman off to the best advantage. However, what I wanted to say to the Financial Secretary was this. As he knows, the Finance Act, 1952, imposed an increase of Entertainments Duty of slightly more than 100 per cent. as from 13th September, 1952, and I should just like to give him these two concrete examples. When Coventry City played Swindon Town on 23rd August, 1952, the duty that they

paid on a gross "gate" of £2,017 was £210. When Coventry City played Aldershot on 27th December, 1952, the duty then paid on a gross "gate" of £1,932 was £410. This increase in duty places professional football clubs in a real dilemma.
I wonder whether the Financial Secretary is aware that the average club in most divisions of the Football League in previous seasons had earned an operating profit of less than the increase in the Entertainments Duty which faced them in the ensuing season. I hope that information has been given to him because it is quite correct, and, as a result of that, a large proportion of the increased duty had to be added to the admission charges.
Last night the Chancellor was kind enough to mention some remarks of mine last year about cricket and amateur sport, and I was particularly interested in the statement that the Chancellor made. I have been to the Library to look at that statement, and I think this is a fair quotation. He said that according to the information he had received if he had levied a tax on cricket it would have been impossible for this national game and the clubs concerned to live. There are two points the Chancellor has had to consider here. The first one must, naturally, be how much money he can afford to let go from his receipts. I quite recognise that. The second is borne out by what the Chancellor said, namely, whether or not the game concerned would fold up if the duty were levied.
I should like to give one particular instance here, because it is no use talking generally. This is one which I know of personally, and I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary could reply to it, even if only in general. For the decline in receipts of my own club of Coventry City three reasons are given: first, the price increase necessitated by Entertainments Duty; secondly, relegation from the second to the third division; and, thirdly, the abnormally bad weather on match days.
In my time I have blamed the Financial Secretary for a good many things, but I would not blame him for relegation to the third division or for the bad weather —although I must say, in passing, that I thought the Labour Party used to be blamed for the bad weather when we


were in power. What I would blame him for, of course, is the Entertainments Duty which is being levied.
Coventry is a fair-sized city, but increased wages and overhead charges necessary for running the club have risen so much that to cover expenditure first-team gates for home matches must be 18,000, although even with gates of 18,000 no provision can be made for ground maintenance or team development. In the 1951–52 season the average first-team gate for home matches was 22,536, and for the 1952–53 season to date the corresponding average is 13,633. The club is now approximately £7,500 in the red, or perhaps I should say is now operating at an annual loss of approximately £7,500. I am sure we in Coventry should all be very sorry if that were to continue.
Although I have cited Coventry City, I appreciate that similar figures are common to many third division clubs. The point was made last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), and it has been stressed to me by my club, that if this position continues the only thing they can do is either to reduce the staff or to dispose of their players— something we do not want to happen.
The plea I make is not on the ground of favouring the amateur or the professional, but simply because if this duty is to be levied on third division clubs —I know it would be very difficult to make a distinction between first, second and third division clubs—I can see no alternative for many third division clubs but to pack up. For the same reason that the Chancellor abolished the duty on cricket matches, I hope he will be able to consider doing the same for football. It is necessary for the third division in order that many clubs may continue to exist.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I do not think that any charge of deliberate discrimination can fairly be sustained against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor if one examines his record during the time that he has been a Chancellor. Last year, he was the first Chancellor to undertake the difficult job of getting rid of the artificial discrimination between live and mechanical forms of sport. This year he has gone a step further and done what all other Chancellors since the war have failed to do;

that is, to remove all amateur sport from the field of Entertainments Duty, and he is to be congratulated on it. At the same time, representing, as I do, a constituency with a third division football club, I can well understand the feeling which has been aroused by the varying treatment between professional football and the mixture of the professional and the amateur which is to be found in the game of cricket.
With the third division clubs I think there is a case for the Chancellors very serious consideration. I think it could fairly be argued that to provide special treatment for the different football divisions might multiply the distinctions which most of us would seek to avoid. Should it be impossible to accept this Amendment, I hope that between now and the next Budget my right hon. Friend will devote his attention to studying the peculiar position of those clubs in the third division. If he does not want to treat them upon a divisional basis, he might at any rate study the possibility of working out a sort of pay-as-you-earn system for football clubs, so that the amount of Entertainments Duty would be based more fairly on the size of the gate they are able to attract. I believe my right hon. Friend's past record shows him to be a fair and just Chancellor, and that it is quite inappropriate to make charges of discrimination against him when his own record shows exactly the contrary.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: It cannot be argued against me that I am biased against cricket because I hold a membership card of one of the most courageous cricket clubs in Scotland, which each year has a terrific struggle for survival. But that cricket club is very fair-minded, and it would not like to see its neighbours, the winter sports club, treated in a different fashion from itself.
I support the Amendment, although I cannot use to the Chancellor the threatening language of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I was interested in my hon. Friend's claim for Stoke's famous outside right. If he goes to Glasgow he will find at Ibrox Stadium the team with the man who played his outside right out of the game. But I am not here to plead for


that team, which will always have a following. I am not here to plead for Celtic. I do not even plead for the Heart of Midlothian, who have the most loyal set of supporters it is possible to have in football, who go to Tynecastle every Saturday the Hearts are playing and take what they get for their money. Nor do I need to appeal for Hibernians, who must put the best team in the field. I direct the Chancellor's attention to the teams in the lower divisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) told us of the size of gates for Coventry City— who, incidentally, would not have an earthly against some of our junior teams in Scotland. In the B and C divisions in Scotland clubs do not play to an audience of even 2,000; they have only 1,000. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the junior teams. Our football clubs in Scotland do not instruct us. That is the difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, and myself. They rely upon me to state their case. Let me mention the Armiston Rangers, the oldest junior football team in East Scotland, who were told they would have to vacate the park on which they had played since 1870, although the landowner had told them that as long as he was living they would have the use of the park. However, redundant miners had to be moved from Lanarkshire and the Coal Board require the ground, so the club had to go across the road to a piece of waste ground to re-make their park, and they had to borrow £4,000 to do it. In one short year, so well managed was that team that they cleared off the £4,000 from the sixpences contributed by the miners of the nearby colliery. Would the Chancellor now ask those same men who contributed the sixpences each week from their pay packets to go along and support the club and be subjected to this tax?
Take the case of their neighbours, the famous Newton Grange Star. They have won every cup for which they have entered and are in the happy state that they have always been able to collect the silver. If a club does not collect the silver in the Scottish Junior Cup competition, it has a struggle each year. Arnis-ton Rangers reached the semi-final of the Scottish Junior Cup and are, therefore, in clover. But what about the clubs

below junior rank—the juveniles—for it is these which are the nurseries for the juniors and for the seniors. Famous Arsenal players have come from junior and juvenile teams in Midlothian. To give one particular instance, the greatest player in the annals of Scottish football, the late Bobbie Walker, never played for a junior club.
In the town where I reside, the juvenile team, Bonnyrigg Rose Athletic "A," save up in order to play their counterpart in London, London Albion. Every second year, one of these teams travels either to Scotland or to England. Having saved up by dint of scraping and saving, by hard work and abstinence, they are able to devote one week to playing football so that they can raise money for the old age pensioners. Are these lads still to be taxed while their neighbours who play cricket in the summer go free?
I ask the Chancellor to examine the game of football from the viewpoint not only of the richer clubs, but of the great mass of players who carry on the game and see that it is kept on that high standard which we all demand when we send our football teams abroad, as we have sent them recently and they have been severely beaten. My hon. Friends will all want to see a Scottish team come down to London and beat England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I always like to see the finest English players come up to Hampden to play our players. It cannot be done, however, if they are taxed out of existence.
I therefore appeal to the Chancellor. I hope that his mind is not made up against the Amendment. Only yesterday a Scottish friend of mine who listened to the debate said to me, "You know, I had a feeling that the three Treasury Ministers did not belong to the Clan McGee: they have not given anything away all day." I want the Chancellor and the Treasury today to modify that attitude and to give some benefit to the players in the greatest game that Britain has ever played.

Mr. Raymond Gower: It is, perhaps, only in debates on the Finance Bill that one realises how many of us are so keenly interested in sport. We have heard from both sides of the Committee many appeals to the Chancellor to


remove, in effect, the whole of the taxation received from the Entertainments Duty on football. From one side of the Committee, at least, there have been no constructive suggestions as to where this money is to be obtained if the Chancellor should agree to those proposals. On the other hand, the case has been presented in terms which make one reticent to oppose it.
The sad stories which we have heard of the difficulties of so many clubs in constituencies represented by hon. Members have been such as to make it difficult for anyone to vote against the Amendment. There is, however, a duty incumbent upon us to find some other source from which to replace this taxation should the Chancellor concede the Amendment.
By far the strongest case has been made for third division clubs. In my case, the chief club in my constituency which is a professional club and is subject to taxation—Barry Town—is not even a third division club. It is a Southern League club. It is within my knowledge that the financial struggle of Southern League clubs is as desperate as that of any county cricket club. They have great difficulty in keeping their heads above the financial waters. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, it is our duty to suggest some alternative field of taxation should the tax on football be removed. By far the best suggestion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who suggested that the Chancellor might recoup by increasing the tax on football pools from 30 to 32½ per cent., thus obtaining the £1,500,000 which might be lost by making the concesson on the Entertainments Duty.
Those who have painted a picture of the virtues of professional games have overlooked some features of professional sports. For my part, I am content to agree that the Chancellor has done the right thing in generally making his first concession to amateur games. I prefer the amateur sport to the professional sport, because the emphasis is largely upon the player.

The Chairman: We finished the amateur business yesterday.

Mr. Gower: I am sorry, Sir Charles.
There is one thing about these professional sports—about Soccer, for instance —which disfigures Association football; that is the practice of paying huge transfer fees. I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor whether there might be another source of revenue in taxing these transfer fees. There are three questions that I put to my right hon. Friend. First, are there any grounds for thinking that a basis might be found for relieving the small clubs—third division and Southern and Midland League clubs—in some way from the full impact of the Entertainments Duty? Second, do the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary believe that there may be some merit in the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster of raising the money from an increased tax upon football pools? Third, is it possible that a source of football taxation might be found in the realm of transfer fees, some of the huge ones amounting to £30,000, which are paid particularly by the first division clubs? I still feel, however, that the case for the removal of this taxation cannot be substantiated unless some alternative field for obtaining this money can be suggested to the Chancellor and to the satisfaction of the Committee.

Mr. James Johnson: When I look at the careworn faces of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I wonder how often they spend an evening at their village "local." Had the Financial Secretary talked to the football fans of Kingston-upon-Thames, he would have discovered what an awful amount of feeling there is about the differentiation between the summer sport of cricket and the winter sport of Soccer. It was touch and go, in fact, whether the professional footballers, because they felt so keenly about this, would turn out to play in the Coronation charity football matches this year, and they were only persuaded to do so by the players' union. So there is an enormous lot of feeling—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Com-missioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Town and Country Planning Act, 1953,
2. White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953,
3. Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1953,
4. Pharmacy Act, 1953,
5. Bromley Corporation Act, 1953,
6. Belper Urban District Council Act, 1953,
7. Tees Conservancy Superannuation Scheme Act, 1953.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 24, after "Cricket," insert "and football."

Question again proposed. "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. Johnson: I left off at the word "feeling." I was speaking about the feeling of the professionals about this discrimination between the summer game of cricket and the winter game of soccer. Meantime, I have used my time wisely and checked this up with Mr. Guthrie, chairman of the Association Players' Union. He says that I am correct in that they were almost on the point of mutiny on the question of playing in Coronation charity matches. The feeling among hon. Members opposite that cricket is somehow "the" traditional game is typically Tory. It is something like their views about public schools, and what I term neo-Disraelian mumbo-jumbo.
But I return to the question of football. To suggest that football clubs are wealthy

and that the directors of Chelsea and other clubs wear gold watch chains and smoke fat cigars is a complete myth. There are only about six clubs in that category and they include the Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and the best club in the country—my own—Newcastle United.
I should like to quote some figures about the takings in the last two years at my adopted club, which is Fulham. Through many causes, not least the incidence of the Entertainments Duty, their average gates fell in 1952 to 22,000 a match compared with 37,000 in 1951. The duty they paid in 1951 was about £5,895, but last year they paid well over £12,000—to be exact £12,169. I take two games to show the enormous difference over the last two years since hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power. When Fulham played Liverpool two years ago there was a gate of £2,590 and tax of £210 was paid. Last year when Fulham played Sunderland there was a gate of £2,796 but the duty was £536— nearly three times the amount paid in the season before.
5.45 p.m.
The club is in debt to the extent of £23,000 and I gather that Bristol City is in debt to the extent of about £40,000. What does this mean? It means that teams like this who had their stands blitzed during the war have insufficient liquid capital to enable them to be returned to their former glory. This duty is crippling the clubs.
I should like to make a few comments about non-fashionable clubs. When I was younger and not quite so corpulent I played with both amateur and professional clubs. In the Birmingham League we had sides which were nearly all professional. There is one amateur team Moor Green, but for the rest the teams have a wage bill of between £47 and £60 a week for the eight, 10 or 12 ex-League footballers who play for them.
What is happening in the Midlands and elsewhere is that the football fans of both games—both the 15 and the 11 aside— see that the Soccer clubs are finding it difficult to make ends meet. In my town of Rugby where there are tens of thousands of skilled engineers who look forward to seeing their favourite sides play every Saturday afternoon, the men note that Rugby is exempt from this duty. That meant a difference of about £205


in the last year for the local rugby club the "Lions." But the town's Soccer side which plays in the Birmingham League has no exemption and, with its wages bill, it has a difficult job to make ends meet and it may well go out of existence in the coming season.
It is the professional sides in the minor leagues like the North Eastern League, the Cheshire County League, the Southern League and the Midlands League, with teams like Denaby and Newark, and the Birmingham League which need some alleviation and hemp, as opposed to the amateur rugger clubs which have no wages bills and may not need exemption. Football fans who like to watch and to play both games feel that the amateurs are getting away with it first in the summer game of cricket, as well as in the winter game of rugby, as compared with the professional game of soccer.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary would spend some time with me in a few village pubs they would soon take a different view of the matter. We shall see many clubs go out of existence, not merely the minor sides but third division teams like Newport County and Accrington Stanley, which are having a very thin time. As with speedway last year and as with cricket this year, football also has an excellent case on the ground of financial distress.
These games are attended by hundreds of thousands of sport-loving workers. In my constituency there are some of the most skilled engineers in the Midlands or indeed in the world, and in the firms of British Thomson-Houston and English Electric Company, and they form the capital of the electrical engineering industry. These men do not want to see their favourite sides go out of existence. But that is what will happen if no change is made. I am happy to support the Amendment and even happier to plead with the Financial Secretary—and I note his careworn face—to show some slight mercy to these minor football clubs.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I intervene at this moment not with any intention of bringing about a shortening of the debate itself. We are discussing one of the most important matters in the Finance Bill, and as one who was not only a modest cricketer but also a footballer in bygone days, I have

a great interest in the subject. I also have my name to an Amendment which, unfortunately, has not been selected. Therefore, I think that justifies my saying a few words in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have faced one another in the House of Commons for over 18 years, and I must say that last night I thought he lived up to his reputation as a very skilled bat for his side. I am not sure that he made a very big score, but he lived up to the reputation that he developed in the years just before the war. The Chancellor was then regarded as one who played, perhaps, the straightest bat of any in the Government of that time, even to the extent of being their champion stone-waller. It may be that at football he was also a good goalkeeper, because I understand that the Chancellor is interested not only in cricket but also in Soccer.
Yesterday, he concentrated his skill on justifying his attitude towards the game of cricket, without seeking in any way to answer the charge that we are making that he is discriminating against these other national sports. I was more than interested in the Chancellor's speech, because I found that, although he referred to column 282 of the debate of 6th May last year, he did not refer to what he said in column 279. He was referring to the very great difficulty of differentiating between the different types of sports, and I find that he said:
If, for example, one is simply going to move down football and cricket, one then leaves hockey, lacrosse, tennis and baseball in the higher scale. How is one to differentiate between one of these sports and another? Can one try and lay down some, shall we say, artistic test. …? Would one have a song in one's heart if one saw the flashing bat of Spooner, and would one put cricket in the artistic scale? I do not think the artistic test would do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 279.]
I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that cricket does introduce the artistic approach. Indeed, 1 think we may say that about professional football. I do not know whether the Chancellor saw the Cup Final, but if he did I think he would agree that the play of Stanley Matthews was the play of a great artist in this particular game. The Chancellor also talked about having "a song in his heart," and I hope he will


have a song in his heart tonight and respond to the appeals that are being made from both sides of the Committee to make some concession on this question of Entertainments Duty.
Reference has also been made to another part of the speech which the Chancellor made last year, in which he referred to the fact that cricket occupies a special place among sports. Many hon. Members have an equal interest in both football and cricket, and I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman would want to suggest that cricket is the only sport that has a special place amongst the sports of this country. I shall not follow the historical references made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) yesterday, but it is the fact that, historically speaking, football is a much older game than cricket in this country.
There was a time, as the Chancellor well knows, when both cricket and football were having to struggle to maintain their existence against restrictive laws which had been passed because of the insistence on what was said to be the national pastime—archery. I find that there is a reference in a book by Sir William Dugdale to General (Sliver Cromwell, who is described as having thrown himself into a dissolute and disorderly course, becoming famous for football, cricket and wrestling, and acquiring the name of Royster. I think we have gone a long way from that attitude to the games of cricket and football.
Our case today is not one of criticism. I certainly very strongly approve of what the Chancellor has done in the interests of cricket, but today we ask him to do something in the interests of the various games of football, and we believe that there is a very strong case in support of what we are urging.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not now in his place, laid great stress on the fact that 60 million people watch professional football each season, and that presumably spreads out the incidence of the duty and therefore minimises its effect. I think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a fallacy, because the 60 million people, as far as I can understand from figures I have received from the Football Association, are obviously made up of an

attendance of two million people per week for 30 weeks of the season. If there is a hardship, then it is a hardship on each of the two million people present at each of the 30 weeks of the season, and therefore I do not think there is very much in that argument.
I ask the Chancellor to look at the matter from this point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) pointed out the importance of professional football in the example which it sets in developing interest in football. I would go further and say that the team spirit, which is so important not only in sport but in every sphere of life, is another very important factor in respect of which we owe a great deal to the clubs and associations of this country.
For example, I find that there are 400 professional clubs and 30,000 amateur clubs—I am talking only about Association football—7,000 professional players and 750,000 amateur players. The Chancellor might suggest that that only lessens the problem, because amateur clubs and players do not have to pay Entertainments Duty and nor do the people who watch them; but I would say that the standard of football, which is as high in this country as anywhere in the world, does to a great extent depend upon the standard of play of this smaller number of professional clubs. Therefore, if there be a problem so far as the professional clubs are concerned, it might well play a part in lowering the efficiency and the standard of football in this country, with consequent effects which none of us desire.
6.0 p.m.
I should have thought that the one argument which could be adduced by whoever is to reply to this debate is the financial one—where is the money coming from? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his Budget last year— and I am not criticising him for doing so—he gave away £40 million, and this year he has given away over £200 million. That being so, the answer to critics like the hon. Member for Kidderminster is that another £1,500,000 would not make such a great difference.
Regarding alternative forms of taxation, I think the Financial Secretary would agree that it is hardly the function of the Opposition to make such suggestions. It is for the Government to provide alternative forms of taxation. The


Chancellor has been under such great pressure tonight, and such a convincing case has been made in favour of the Amendment, that I think we can hope that he will accept it and thus enable the Committee to proceed with the Bill.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his very well-expressed appreciation of the merits of football and the part it plays in providing wholesome and agreeable recreation to many millions of our fellow countrymen. But I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that agreement with that general proposition does not conclude the matter since there are many activities both wholesome and agreeable which have to bear in these days their share of the burden of taxation.
A good deal of this debate and a certain amount of what has just been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) has turned on the general issue of discrimination. Perhaps inevitably a good deal of that repeated the debate which took place directly on that issue last night, and for that reason I do not think it necessary for me fully to traverse the ground covered by my right hon. Friend last night. I think that is the less necessary if hon. Members reflect on the conditions of the debate in which we are now taking part.
As I understand it, the broad principle of discrimination was settled by the decision taken by the Committee last night. What we are now debating is an Amendment which, whether accepted or defeated, still leaves discrimination in existence. It would leave a system of discrimination in existence, not less, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) says, but with the line drawn at another place. Therefore, I hope that we can discuss this issue without too much discussion of the general issue of discrimination which was fully dealt with last night. I shall endeavour to address my argument to what I understand is the real point raised by this Amendment. Accepting discrimination, should that discrimination be so placed as to put football with cricket on one side of the line, or should it remain in its present position?
That, as I understand it, is the issue, and I submit to the Committee that on that basis there is some obligation on those hon. Members who urge this discrimination in favour of football to show that there are real, practical and conclusive grounds for giving it that particular attention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that I carry hon. Members with me in that proposition because we want to conduct this debate on a reasonable basis. Therefore, I need not waste any time in dealing with one or two observations which have been made of a rather general nature, and, in some cases, of a rather prejudicial nature, on the question of discrimination.
In the background of the decision which we shall have to make on that point there are two considerations which are to some extent material. In the first place, football has been subject to Entertainments Duty since 1916. Though the rates have varied from time to time, the subjection of this sport to Entertainments Duty has continued under a wide variety of Governments—including no less than three formed by the party opposite—and during a wide variety of national and international conditions.
We are, therefore, dealing with a state of affairs which has lasted for 37 years, and while, of course, that is not conclusive, if hon. Members think there has been such a change as to justify an alteration in the position it is perhaps a little bit material, bearing in mind the somewhat exaggerated observations made by one or two hon. Members, to recall that this is not a new impost, but an impost which, in greater or less degree, has fallen on that sport under a variety of Governments for a longer time than practically anybody, except my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has been in this House.

Mr. Douglas Jay: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am trying to put as reasonably as I can a coherent argument, and when I have finished that part of it I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
We are not discussing, as one might have thought from one or two of the speeches that have been made today, an imposition of a tax on an activity hitherto


untaxed. We are discussing the continuation of a tax upon an activity which all Governments for 37 years have thought an appropriate subject for tax.

Mr. Jay: In order to be reasonable and fair, ought not the hon. Gentleman to mention the fact that the Government raised the tax last year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I made that abundantly clear; I said there had been a variety of rates. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this Amendment does not bear on that question at all, because it seeks to exempt football from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman's interjection would have validity if it were made in support of an Amendment to reduce the rate of tax. With great respect, it has no validity when what he is seeking to do is to support an Amendment which goes to the root of the question whether this activity should be taxed at all, leaving the precise rate out of account for the moment. I think he appreciates that perfectly clearly.

Mr. Richard Adams: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is my duty to give a reasonable statement of the Government's point of view, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not easy to do that if one has to give way and apply one's mind to a wide variety of points which hon. Members think important.
The first consideration is that this is no new imposition of tax. The next point that has been very much underrated in this debate is the great degree of relief which my right hon. Friend's proposals embody for football. I shall not again go over the question of relief for the amateur clubs, but in this field of football this relief is, of course, of very great significance and is a welcome relief to a very substantial number of clubs. Against the background of those discussions it really is a little unfair to underrate the welcome concession which my right hon. Friend has felt able to make to the amateur players and clubs.
It is also worth bearing in mind that when we come to the next Clause of this Bill there is a concession in respect of duty on season tickets, which I understand will be of particular benefit to football

and will be at any rate some concession in respect of those professional clubs which do not receive the benefit of the amateur concession. Therefore, the background to this issue is not, as one would have thought from some of the speeches which have been made, a situation in which no recognition has been given to the merits and value of this game. On the contrary, an advance has been made, particularly in respect of amateurs, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not feel able to make when they were responsible.
This also meets the point of view which was put forward in a quotation placed before hon. Members during last year's debate by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) from the Secretary of the Football Association, Sir Stanley Rous, who said:
I do hope M.P.s will stress the fact that Association football is not really composed of a few big League clubs. It is true that they attract the money and the tax, but what I am so deeply concerned about is the effect of the Entertainments Duty on thousands of amateur clubs up and down the country, with their million players or so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 321.]
That was the view expressed through my hon. Friend last year by a very responsible person in this particular world.
When hon. Members are making up their minds whether my right hon. Friend's proposals are fair in general, it it right to bear in mind that as part and parcel of my right hon. Friend's proposals this year there are these very appreciable and valuable concessions to football in general; and the word "football" is the expression used in the Amendment which is now before the Committee.
I suggest that we look at this question against that background and consider whether it is also necessary to take a very substantial further step and exempt professional football altogether from Entertainments Duty. We should consider also whether, in all the circumstances of today, it is wholly unreasonable to provide, as it is provided at the moment, that in respect of a 1s. 9d. seat the person who buys the ticket pays, in the 1s. 9d., 3½d. by way of tax.
There are one or two material points which I hope hon. Members will consider in coming to a decision. As my


hon. Friend the Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) very fairly pointed out, there is the fact that there is here an appreciable revenue consideration. As far as we can estimate it, the yield of the tax on football as a whole is about £1,500,000, of which £1,400,000 comes from Association football and about £100,000 from the Rugby League football, to which I will direct a few words at a later stage.

Mr. George Porter: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is an appreciable element of revenue, and I do not honestly think that we shall advance clarity of thought by going into questions of alternative methods of raising revenue. Those are the figures.

Mr. Porter: I have a good point to put to the hon. Gentleman if he will give way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If, indeed, the hon. Member has a good point he can put it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Porter: The hon. Gentleman says that a loss of £1,500,000 is involved. Obviously that amount must include what was obtained in the past from amateur clubs when they paid tax. If the hon. Gentleman says that the Revenue cannot afford to lose £1.500,000 in taxation, I suggest that he is not losing that amount because he is not giving that amount away.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I find that I am right when I thought that the hon. Member had not a very helpful point to make. The figure which I have given to the Committee is the estimate of the revenue on the basis proposed in the Bill, that is, without any element in respect of tax on amateurs at all. This is the estimate of what will be yielded by the duty in the form in which it is present in the Bill. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member will allow me to say that my initial reaction in not giving way was right.
I do not want to over-estimate it, but there is here an element of some substance to the Revenue and I think that hon. Members will agree that we are entitled to attach some weight to it. Then there is the consideration that although football is a most admirable activity which gives

great pleasure to a great many of our fellow-countrymen, it is a form of entertainment for which people pay for admission and which is provided in general by paid performers. It is also an activity in which substantial sums of money are invested, and, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said, a return of 1½ per cent. is sometimes permitted.
It is accepted in the general field of taxation that professionally provided entertainment is in general an appropriate subject for taxation. Certainly that is the view which every modern Government has taken. I have not heard any argument today to suggest that, in general, professionally provided entertainment is not a perfectly proper subject for taxation in view of the need for raising revenue.
On that basis, I suggest that the only argument that could be of great validity would be to say, as has not been shown this afternoon, that the operation of this tax had a catastrophic effect on the activity on which it fell. No one has attempted to advance that proposition. It is a fact that, particularly in the case of the big professional clubs which are the main collectors of this tax, there are very large attendances. That was notably the case at the recent Cup Final where I understand the attendance was raised by a number of right hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the Committee, and a great number of their fellow-countrymen.
I want to deal with the suggestion which was made, particularly by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), that the rate of tax was necessarily connected with the fall in attendances which particular clubs had suffered. The hon. Lady very fairly admitted that there were, even on her own argument, a number of other factors. In particular, one of the factors in the case of the club to which she referred was that club's lack of athletic success. It is quite fallacious reasoning to say that if attendances have gone down the tax must be to blame.
In the case of three sports on which, as the result of the reconstruction of the duty affected in my right hon. Friend's Finance Bill last year, the rate of tax fell —horse racing, speedway racing and dog racing—the attendances have since fallen. Therefore, that is a fair demonstration


of the over-simplification that results from suggesting that where attendances have dropped it is necessarily attributable to the tax. There are cases where other factors have operated even though there was a reduction in tax.
May I, as I promised, say a few words specifically on the subject of Rugby League football, to which the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) relates and which was referred to in the course of this debate by the hon. Member for Workington. I think it is perhaps convenient that we are discussing the position of Rugby League football in the course of the debate on the main football Amendment because, as will be appreciated, Rugby League football is played at the same time and to the same extent, and sometimes in competition with, Association football, particularly in the North of England. Therefore, it is perhaps convenient that we should deal with the two at the same time.
As the hon. Gentleman said, I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation from the controlling body of this sport, and it is the case that, for whatever reason it may be, some of the professional clubs concerned are encountering financial difficulties. It is equally the case that there are others whose position is far from unsatisfactory, and I do not think there is any general deduction as to the effect of the tax to be drawn from the very close study which I have given to the accounts with which they were so courteous to supply me. It is, of course, a fact, as the deputation made clear, that there is a very substantial amateur element in this sport and that amateur element gets the benefit of the amateur concession to which the Committee agreed on the previous Clause.
I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but on the general issue I should like to say that I fully appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend, the proper concern which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown for the well-being of activities in respect of which many millions of people pay substantial sums of money for wholesome and refreshing entertainment. At the same time, I am sure the Committee will recall the general propositions in connection with entertain-

ment as being a proper vehicle for taxation, on which I addressed the Committee a few moments ago.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear from the action which he is taking in the proposals in this Bill that he keeps the position of this and other sports under review, and I can say on his behalf that he will carefully watch the position of the football clubs, and perhaps in particular the smaller or third division clubs to which particular reference has been made.
Having said that, having given the assurance which my right hon. Friend can easily give because he keeps all these activities under close and constant review throughout the year, and having made it clear that he does not propose to ignore any developments that may or may not take place, I should like to say that, so far as this Amendment is concerned, I do not feel that a case has been made for giving to Association football the treatment which this Amendment would give to it. I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating the reasoning that brings me to that conclusion, but so far we have had a most agreeable debate, and I hope that the undue apprehensions which I am sure some hon. Members may have felt have been in some degree diminished.

Mr. Porter: I do not know whether a further plea will be of value on this matter, but I should like to tell the Financial Secretary, with respect to his assumption that he is the only person who can decide what is a good point, that his points appear to be based upon estimates while the points which we are making in support of this Amendment are based on positive facts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a short while ago, expressed his pleasure at having attended a dinner as the president of a supporters' club, when he was complimented on the wonderful thing he had done on their behalf. I happen to be the president of a supporters* club, and I should like to be in the same position and to receive the same compliments at the annual meeting of my organisation.
It has been suggested that Association and Rugby football are financially in a different category from the category of


cricket. The only difference, so far as I can see, is that in reviewing the situation the Chancellor has preferred to base his reaction on cricket teams who are in a bad financial situation, but in the case of Association and Rugby football the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary base their decisions on clubs that are in a reasonably good financial position.
I am interested in particular in two clubs, although I am interested in the Rugby game in general. Both of these clubs have raised with me the question of their financial position. Hunslet, in Leeds, have drawn my attention to the fact that in the 1951–52 sports year their receipts were £9,995, of which £801 was paid out in tax. The following sports year their income increased to £10,198 and their Entertainments Duty was £1,521, or practically twice the amount of tax, although the increase in their income was so small.
Those figures would entitle them, standing on their own, to serious consideration. But the other club in my home town in which I am interested— Liverpool City—is in a worse position because it is not only trying to establish itself as a Rugby club in that town but it is fighting against adverse circumstances, such as poor gates and a poor income. Last year, their income was only £1,065. The expenses of running the team were £2,064 and at the same time the tax paid by the club was £153. Therefore, the point that has to be answered is not whether some Association and Rugby football teams are in a fairly good financial position but why there is this differentiation between the two games.
6.30 p.m.
Exactly the same arguments as those put forward by myself and other hon. Members who are making this plea were advanced by the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to cricket. We were told that cricket has received special consideration because of the financial position of cricket teams generally, but some of us know of county cricket clubs who have £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 invested in real assets, so that they have money at their disposal to use whenever they like. They were not taken into consideration when

this plea was made on behalf of cricket clubs generally. I suggest that the same consideration which was given to cricket should be given to Rugby football, because the smaller clubs suffer the same disability.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised the relationship between cricket in this country and cricket played in the Commonwealth. If this question is to be determined on the respect shown to cricketers when they go to the Commonwealth, it must be remembered that when Rugby football players go to Australia and play matches over there they are held in greater respect than are the cricketers because up to now the Rugby players have never failed to bring the Ashes back from Australia, and that cannot be said about the cricketers.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): We are getting a little far from this Amendment.

Mr. Porter: I was merely endeavouring to point out that the considerations which determined the concession for county cricket also apply to Rugby football. If I am out of order in developing that point I am sorry, because it is the whole purpose of the Amendment and it was the basis upon which all the speeches have been made this afternoon.
Friends and colleagues of mine who happen to have been to Australia, and who are interested in both Rugby football and cricket, tell me that the main ground upon which cricket Test matches are played—Sydney cricket ground— would not be able to maintain itself, and probably would not be at the disposal of the cricketers, if it were not for the financial assistance received through the Rugby matches which are played there and which draw bigger crowds. All we ask is that in determining the relationship of Association and Rugby football to this type of taxation consideration should be given to those clubs which are least able to bear the tax, as was done in the case of cricket.

Mr. George Wigg: The very agreeable and well-intentioned speech of the Financial Secretary made two points quite clear. First, whatever his leisure-time occupations may be, he certainly never puts a rosette in his buttonhole and arms himself with a rattle to support a


football club. Secondly, he has completely failed to meet at least two-thirds of the arguments advanced from these benches.
As the Secretary of the Football Association has said, the overwhelming concern of those interested in Soccer must be the smaller clubs. The Financial Secretary told us that the Chancellor certainly has in mind the weak and often precarious position of many of the third division football clubs, but that surely is only the fringe of the story. I want to refer to the position of two clubs in my constituency—Stourbridge and Dudley. Next year they will play in the Birmingham League. They are clubs which have to compete for support with the great clubs in the Football League—West Bromwich Albion, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Aston Villa and Birmingham. It seemed to me that the Financial Secretary lumped all the smaller clubs with the great teams in the Football League and drew the dividing line between amateurs and professionals.
The Dudley and Stourbridge Football Clubs, technically, are professional clubs. The majority of their players are part-time professionals. But to say that such football clubs are professional clubs in the sense that first, second, or third division League clubs are professional marks a complete failure to understand the arguments which have been advanced from these benches. The secretaries of the Dudley and Stourbridge Football Clubs work for their living. The treasurers work for their livelihood, and all the members of the committees and the officials are chaps who earn their daily bread in jobs outside football. It is their leisure-time occupation to keep their football clubs in being.
The Financial Secretary had the great advantage of sitting at the feet of the late Lord Lindsay, who was my friend. It was always one of Lord Lindsay's arguments that the working of democracy depended not upon academic or intellectual definition but upon the functioning and flourishing of voluntary organisations, of which there is no better example than the football or cricket club which is run by a handful of enthusiasts who, in the first instance, put their hands into their own pockets and who subsequently appeal and obtain public support. The

experience gained by these gentlemen in organising these activities are subsequently put at the public service.
If a survey were taken, not only of the Dudley and Stourbridge Football Clubs but of clubs throughout Great Britain, the Financial Secretary would find that those who serve these sporting organisations as members of committees and the like are the same people who place their services at the disposal of the community as air raid wardens and in similar organisations. We should not lose sight of the fact that voluntary organisations are the foundation of our democratic way of life.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite, whose leisure-time pursuits fall into the class which is known as gentlemen's games, to sneer at people who go to watch football matches. I well remember, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), an occasion before the war in Stoke-on-Trent—where I live and for which my hon. Friend has the honour to be a Member—when there were rumours that Stanley Matthews would be transferred. Those rumours coincided with the resignation of the present Foreign Secretary from his position in the Chamberlain Government, and two protest meetings were called in the same week.
There was a protest meeting against the possible transfer of Stanley Matthews. The promoters of this meeting hired a hall, but there were more citizens outside than inside. On the following Sunday, at a meeting organised by the League of Nations Union and supported by all parties, there may have been 50 members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and myself, and the same snooty remarks were made about soccer fans as were made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell).

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Member must not associate all hon. Members on this side of the Committee with any snooty attitude about Soccer. I am one of the longest suffering football fans in the House, for I have followed Chelsea for 30 years.

Mr. Wigg: I will not associate the hon. Member with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) or the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, but I do not care very much about his


protest unless he makes it by going with us into the Division Lobby.
I did not intend to dwell much on the point, except in so far as it was necessary to reply to the Financial Secretary. In the Birmingham League, in which both Dudley and Stourbridge will play next season, there is one exclusively amateur team Boldmere St. Michaels. All its players are amateurs. As I understand it, they will receive no benefit at all under the proposals because they will never play against another amateur team, for theirs is the only amateur team in the league.
My last words are these. If the Financial Secretary will not go as far as we want, will he plead with his right hon. Friend to make this concession this year: let him keep the tax on the first, second and third divisions, but let him consider taking it off, or restoring the tax to last year's level, for teams like Dudley and Stourbridge, which are not professional teams in the true sense of the word.
I appreciate that it is fallacious to argue that because teams like Dudley and Stourbridge are in financial difficulties it naturally follows that that is due to the increase in duty. I do not believe that, but it is due, of course, to Government policy. Overtime in the Midlands has gone and short-time is on the horizon. There is not so much money in people's pockets as there was last year. In the 1952–53 season the takings of a small club like Stourbridge were down by £1,000 and they made a loss on the year of £550. In Dudley, where they carry on only by a very narrow margin, the takings were also down by £1,000. Quite clearly there is a limit to the length of time these clubs can continue.
I think the Financial Secretary did less than justice to the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee when he said his right hon. Friend would watch the position of the third division clubs. It is true that some third division clubs are in a bad way, but their resources, and the public support, are much greater than in the case of clubs like Dudley and Stourbridge. I plead with the Financial Secretary to ask the Chancellor to say that not only will he watch the situation for third division clubs, but that he will watch it for clubs like those in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My recollection is that I said, "With particular reference to the smaller clubs such as the third division clubs." That is what I intended to say. The words "third division" were illustrative rather than exclusive.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It has been interesting and, at times, entertaining this afternoon to listen to hon. Members pleading for their own local clubs, but I feel that the issue involved in the Amendment far transcends our local prides and prejudices. I agree with the Financial Secretary when he suggests that we should try to look at the Amendment objectively and to give some practical reasons why football should be treated on a par with cricket. I noted one rather alarming and significant observation by the Financial Secretary which seemed to suggest that our sporting organisations must now reach the point of catastrophe before they can hope for any relief from the Treasury.
I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends were bitterly disappointed with the Chancellor's reply to the general debate on sport which was initiated last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). It is true to say that not one crumb of comfort was offered by the Chancellor, although I am sure he realised how deeply and how sincerely we on this side of the Committee feel about this question. Indeed, I think we were most deeply shocked by the reason which the Chancellor advanced for refusing any concessions to Association football. I should be the last to want to do the Chancellor an injustice, but as I listened to him winding up the debate I felt that he had shifted his ground from where he stood on Second Reading. It seemed to me that his refusal was based on expediency rather than on principles, as I shall seek to show.
The Chancellor said that his decision to exempt county cricket from Entertainments Duty altogether would cost him only £80,000, whereas if he exempted Association football it would cost him between £1,500,000 and £2 million. It therefore appears that justice between one sport and another is conditioned by the amount of loss of revenue to the Exchequer. That is why I join with my


right hon. and hon. Friends in their protests against what has been widely condemned—and I hope that the Chancellor has noted that it has been widely condemned throughout the country—as a discriminating tax on sport.
There is a saying that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth, and I say at once, as one who took a fairly active part in pleading with the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last Budget for some remission of Entertainments Duty for our county cricket clubs, that I appreciate the recognition of the need of the county cricket clubs in the relief which he has given, but I suggest to him that we and the county cricket clubs did not expect to be given the full remission which he has offered on this occasion and most certainly not for the intriguing reasons which the Chancellor gave in his Budget speech.
I wonder whether the Chancellor read the observations of Mr. Bennett Manson, the chairman of the Rugby League, who said:
We are really shocked at the Chancellor's differentiation and inconsistency.
During his speech the Parliamentary Secretary quoted the Secretary of the Football Association, Sir Stanley Rous, but he quoted what Sir Stanley said last year and not what he said this year. Sir Stanley Rous said this year:
I can see no satisfactory distinction that can be made between amateur and professional sport for the purpose of duty. To single out any sport for preferential treatment is bound to cause anomalies.
The secretary of the Football League, Mr. Fred Howarth, said:
I doubt whether professional football will be able to carry on as it is at the moment and it may mean putting an extra burden on the public.
I am not going to quote my own local authorities, but the people in my city, particularly the officials of the clubs, regard this duty as being extremely discriminatory, and it is the discriminatory nature of the duty as now proposed I want to examine. I start by quoting what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement. He said:
 I am satisfied that last year's new arrangements are on the right lines and should be continued, but I have some proposals in fulfilment of the undertakings I then gave. I have now found a way of helping amateur sport in general.

Then comes a very important passage:
I shall proceed by reference, not to the status of individuals, but to the purposes of the clubs or other organisations for which they play. On this basis I propose to exempt amateur sport from Entertainments Duty. The exemption will apply to games, races and other sports provided by a club or similar organisation established and conducted for the promotion and furtherance of amateur sport and not conducted or established for profit. It will, of course, be a condition that no remuneration should be paid to anyone actually taking part. In most sports the amateur definition which I have devised will, I think, work reasonably well, but it will not do for cricket."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.]
That seems to infer that the Chancellor was searching around for a definition which would not only cover amateur sports but amateur or professional cricket. He said so last night. I ask him how he can sustain his discrimination between professional soccer and professional county cricket. Who has been advising the Chancellor? Is it the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? The Chancellor's contention that the reason he proposed to exempt county cricket—which, I say, is as much a professional sport as Association football—was the difficulty of definition, will not bear even superficial, let alone detailed, examination.
A number of county cricket clubs, because of their all-professional character and their inability to find even one amateur to act as captain, have had to appoint professionals to lead their sides. I took the trouble last night to examine the make-up of the county cricket teams playing in yesterday's matches. I do not claim that I am completely accurate, but I believe that I am as accurate as is necessary for my argument. I am talking of the first elevens, the people playing in the first-class county matches. My own county, Gloucestershire, are an all-professional side; Northamptonshire have all professionals; Lancashire have one amateur; Yorkshire, two amateurs; Nottinghamshire are all professional; Sussex, all professional, although I am a little doubtful about that county; Kent, one amateur; Derbyshire, two amateurs; Hampshire, one amateur; Middlesex, two amateurs; Worcestershire, all professional; Leicestershire, one amateur; Warwickshire, all professional.
There were 15 matches played yesterday including the M.C.C. match at Lords, and there were 16 amateurs playing in those 15 matches. All the rest were professional cricketers. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Essex?"] I did not include Essex, because I am not sure that Essex were playing yesterday. If it is the case that the Chancellor was unable to find a definition of amateur status which would fit into county cricket, I ask him why he is trying to sustain his defence of this discriminatory action as between the one sport and the other.
Let me examine the effect of the changes in the Entertainments Duty that the Chancellor made in last year's Budget. It has been said already in the previous debate, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and one or two others, that if we are asking for remission of tax on Association football we should try to show some way of raising revenue in another direction. I am not necessarily asking the Chancellor completely to remit the Entertainments Duty on Association football. If the Chancellor would only restore the position as it was before last year's Budget—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The Amendment is to remit the duty.

Mr. Wilkins: That is what the Amendment seeks to do, and I hope the Chancellor will accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think that if the Amendment were passed it would remove all sport from Entertainments Duty or restore the position as it was before last year's Budget. The difficulty arose last year about speedway racing. It was due to the speedway racing revolution that the Entertainments Duty was altered in last year's Budget and this Amendment does not have the effect that has been suggested.

Mr. Wilkins: I am much obliged to the Chancellor. He said at that time that he would watch the incidence of the duty to see just how it worked. He is in a position now to know how it has worked and to know the effect it has had upon the various sporting organisations. If we want to discover the effect of the duty we have to double the rate of Entertainments Duty as it applied in 1951 to 1952 and add a halfpenny; and we have

the exact amount of duty clubs are paying at the present time. Examination of the balance sheets of the clubs shows, however, that the increase of Entertainments Duty is trebled in some cases, and, in some cases, it is even more. I suppose it depends upon the charge for stand seats. The principal complaint of the Association football clubs is that the main burden of this duty falls at ground entrance level. It falls upon the man who pays the lowest entrance fee to the ground. Where he was paying 1s. 6d. and there was 1d. tax he now pays 1s. 9d. and there is 3½d. tax. So one can go on multiplying the various instances that there are.
7.0 p.m.
We have been invited to make some suggestions and I want to make some. The Chancellor should look at the possibility of restoring the duty to the level of last year. I rather favour—and I am not afraid to say so here or on a public platform—the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that we should look at the question of taxation of football pools. There may be a little revenue to be obtained from that source.
However, I am more concerned with the suggestion I made to the Chancellor last year and which has been repeated today. It is high time that the Treasury examined the possibility of obtaining revenue from those clubs which are able to pay fantastic transfer fees for players. If clubs are wealthy enough to pay £25,000 and £30,000 a time for the transfer of a player, they might reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards the Exchequer. It would be far better for the Arsenals and the Tottenham Hotspurs to make a contribution in this way, instead of some of the professional clubs, particularly in the third division, having a terrific struggle to exist.
I hope that the Chancellor will look at these possibilities, and that he will pay some attention to our plea to him tonight. We are in deadly earnest about this. We think it is something that ought to be very carefully examined, so that there should be a semblance of equity in the duty on sports, whether amateur or professional.

Mr. Roy Mason: Realising that there are still many hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate, I shall be as brief as I possibly can. In order to do so, I shall be rather specific and deal particularly with the plight of my


own constituency's football team. No doubt many hon. Members, particularly football enthusiasts, will have noticed that the Barnsley Football Club was relegated to the Third Division at the end of last season. The case of the Barnsley club is an interesting one, well worthy of the Chancellor's attention.
There have been various increases of expenditure falling on football clubs, in wages, equipment, ground maintenance, rates and so on. In addition to that, there has been an increase in the heavy rate of Entertainments Duty, which is reflected in higher charges for admission, which are direct and are felt more by the spectator than the other increases, and are thus followed by lower attendances. In view of this, Barnsley have had to sell many of their star players. The cream of their team has been sold during the past season because the high admission charges make for lower attendance, and financial difficulties have consequently fallen upon the club.
I should like to quote from a letter I have received from the Barnsley Football Club:
As you are doubtless aware, the cost involved in connection with professional football clubs is very heavy, and quite a number of the lesser known are having great difficulty in meeting their commitments. One example which comes readily to mind is the position of Mansfield Town Football Club, which has been compelled to make an appeal to the public for funds to avoid liquidation. The lesser clubs are only able to survive by transferring their best players. But even this course of action is limited"—

Mr. Adams: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Would you accept a Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned," to draw attention to the fact that there is only one lonely Whip on the Government Front Bench and not a single Minister in attendance to look after this miserable Bill?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): It is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to move the adjournment of the debate whilst his hon. Friend is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Adams: Do I take it that you accept it in principle?

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot say that, as I never make promises about possible future action.

Mr. Mason: The quotation I was reading continues:
The lesser clubs are only able to survive by transferring their best players. But even this course of action is limited owing to the clubs who are fortunate enough to have good gates now feeling the strain of heavy taxation, both direct and indirect.
I was very pleased to note that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) mentioned that encouragement would be given to clubs to sell their best players. Last season Barnsley had to sell their star players, some of whom I will mention. Blanchflower, who came from Ireland to Barnsley, his first English club, gained international status, but was sold to Aston Villa. Baxter, a forward of outstanding ability, was last season transferred to Preston North End and assisted them in their rise to second place in the first division. McMoran, who has gained Irish international caps, was last season transferred to Doncaster.
Last of all, and most regrettable, is Taylor, a native of Barnsley, who had been brought up through the team's system—the 18-year-old team, the reserve team, and so on—a young lad of outstanding ability, who, much against his will I understand, had to be transferred towards the latter part of the season because the club were in financial difficulties. We sold that player to Manchester United for approximately £30,000. Taylor would have preferred to stay in his home town; his family were there, his girl friend was there, and he was much devoted to his club, but simply because of the club's financial embarrasment Taylor had to go.
It is noteworthy that last week, after being transferred from Barnsley only a short time, Taylor gained an international cap abroad on the South American tour. Might I say in passing that the hearts of all Barnsley people go with him in hoping that he will get many more. Would it not have been better if his own home town could have had the honour of producing an English international? With lower admission charges, particularly in this industrial area of Barnsley, we should get more spectators, and if we were able to keep our star players and had the honour of producing an English international we would attract even larger gates.
Last season there were gates of only 7,000 on some Saturdays, yet we were expected to keep a second division club going in a large industrial centre such as Barnsley. We were producing future internationals, yet this year the club is going down into the third division. Clubs like this could be helped by tax reliefs. The Chancellor is now able to give help to some sports, and in view of some of the examples I have outlined I hope he will be able to give similar recognition to football.
We have been asked where the Revenue should come from to make up the deficit if Entertainments Duty were removed from football. I would point out that Barnsley is the centre of a great mining area, as is shown by the fact that the Yorkshire mining headquarters are in Barnsley. Recently Mr. W. E. Jones, the General Secretary of the Yorkshire miners, made an important speech in which he asked for more production, at the same time praising Yorkshire miners for their efforts, pointing out that in recent weeks they had produced more than in the corresponding weeks last year.
These miners ought to have the opportunity of seeing first-rate sport at the weekends during their leisure hours, which would no doubt be reflected in higher production. If the Chancellor grants this tax relief to football he will receive his reward in higher production. If this relief could be given, attendances would be higher, clubs would be able to keep their star players, and competition would be keener for promotion rather than, as at present, to avoid relegation.

Mr. Adams: I am naturally anxious to follow the advice given by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Thomas, that we should be as brief as possible, but I must begin by pointing out two factors in this debate for which we on this side cannot be held responsible.
First, there is one man who could put an end to this debate right now, and that is the Chancellor himself. If the Chancellor were willing to accept this Amendment, we could proceed to other Amendments without further ado. The second thing militating against shortening this debate is the very unsatisfactory reply of the Financial Secretary. I do not want to dwell too long upon his speech, but it did contain two complete economic fallacies which showed him to be quite

unfitted to hold the financial office he holds. I am sure the Chancellor will agree in his absence when I explain it to him.
The first fallacious statement the Financial Secretary made was in saying it was quite wrong for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to argue about a duty on football which had been in existence for the past 37 years. That argument quite overlooks the fact that there have been tax changes in regard to cricket and other sports which make it necessary to review the tax position with regard to football. I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree when he looks at his own remarks.
The other fallacious statement he made was towards the end of his speech when he said that the remission or imposition of taxation had nothing to do with the sale of goods. I ask him to talk over that point with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask the Chancellor why he took the tax off pianos and umbrellas if he thought that taxes were going to have no effect upon their sale.
Passing from the very unsatisfactory speech of the Financial Secretary, I want to say that the whole course of our discussion on this Amendment, on this Clause, and on the Clause yesterday shows the evil results that occur when the Chancellor departs from the simple application of a simple tax. All the speeches that have been made during the past two days have been special pleadings for special sports and for special considerations. We have had the plea that tennis should be treated like cricket, the plea that professionals should be treated like amateurs and so on. In other words, the Chancellor by his changes— and other Chancellors must accept their responsibility—has worked himself into a complex and impossible situation.
I make the suggestion that we should go back to fundamentals and consider what is the purpose of this Entertainments Duty not only on football but on all indoor activities and all outdoor sports. Surely it is this. The Chancellor, having imposed a heavy slice of Income Tax, then goes on to say to the taxpayer, "Although I have taxed you pretty heavily by Income Tax, I still need some money from you and, therefore, I propose to tax you whenever you indulge in any entertainment."
I break off here to remind the committee that I listened to all the speeches yesterday and most of them today and that, with the exception of a passing reference by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), no one has approached this problem from the point of view of the taxpayer—the ordinary man in the street. Nearly every speech made in the Committee has been from the point of view of the game of tennis, the art of football, or the practice of some other sport. I want to bring the Committee back to fundamentals.
Why should the Chancellor be in the position of saying to the ordinary man in the street, "If you want to watch a cricket match you can do so and I will not tax you; but if you want to watch a game of football I propose to tax you."? Why should the Chancellor be in the position of saying, "If you go to a certain stadium and watch the speedway racing there one evening I will put a heavy slice of tax on you; but if you go to the same stadium the following afternoon to see amateur athletics, I will not charge you anything, but if you watch a professional taking part in athletics I am going to subject you to tax."? Why should the Chancellor be in a position of bringing his own subjective views to bear on what tax should be paid by the individual taxpayer? The Chancellor himself has expressed a preference for cricket.

Mr. R. A. Butler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Adams: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the value of cricket in cementing together Commonwealth relations. May I remind him that cricket was the occasion a few years ago of almost a rift within the Commonwealth. One might argue from that unfortunate incident that one ought to abolish cricket in this country altogether in order to avoid the possibility of further ill feeling in the Commonwealth. That shows how fallacious is his argument that because he thought cricket could benefit our Commonwealth relations he ought to remit the tax on cricket.
7.15 p.m.
To come back to fundamentals, I submit that any person who goes to any form of entertainment should have a free

choice and the Chancellor should not step in and say, "If you like the living stage, as I do, you need not pay so much tax as if you like the cinema, which I abhor." That is the position into which the Chancellor has worked himself. If a man goes to see "A Streetcar Named Desire" on the living stage, he will not pay as much tax as if he goes to a cinema to see a film like "Kon Tiki" or the "Mount Everest Expedition."

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the football question.

Mr. Adams: I have every intention of devoting my time to football, but I was using these other points as an illustration of the absurd situation into which the Chancellor has worked himself by trying to discriminate and make differentiations between different forms of entertainment and different forms of sport.
It is true, as an hon. Member opposite said, that if we are going to suggest that football should receive the same discrimination as cricket then we should suggest an alternative for revenue. I think that an overwhelming case has been made for saying that football is a far more popular sport than cricket and, therefore, ought to be treated at least equally well. I go further and say that in the choice which the Chancellor has made there is an element of class distinction because there is no doubt that professional football, played on a Saturday afternoon, is the sport of the ordinary man in the street whereas the sports of county cricket, tennis and golf tend to be those of people in the middle classes. To that extent there is an element of class consciousness in what the Chancellor has done.
Let us take, for instance, the difference between the professional football played in winter on a Saturday afternoon on which a heavy rate of tax is imposed by the Chancellor and the amateur game of tennis as played in the Wimbledon championships which is completely free of tax. Is there any difference between the commercial application of those people who are running the Wimbledon championships and those bodies of people who run the football clubs during the winter? There is not the slightest distinction between them, yet the Chancellor now


proposes that tennis should be tax-free because it is played by amateurs, so-called, at Wimbledon whereas the professional players of football for the entertainment of people on Saturday afternoons have their clubs subject to tax.
If we are going to accept the Chancellor's discrimination, I think that my hon. Friends have made an overwhelming case for putting professional football in the same class as cricket. I go further and say that the whole of the Entertainments Duty, owing to the complex situation into which it has got today, should be removed entirely, and I include the cinemas as well. If I may revert to the question of the cinemas for a moment, we have reached the position where this duty which started as an Entertainments Duty can now be divided into two. It can be divided into the cinema tax, which produces £38 million a year, and a sports tax, including football and other professional sports, the duty on which provides a mere £4 million or so.
My proposal today is that all the duty paid by the man in the street when he goes to the cinema or goes to the football ground should be removed and in its place an entertainments tax proper should be imposed on every company and organisation in the country, whether professional or amateur, which organises any shows of entertainment or sport whether indoors or outdoors. Let us see what the effect of such a tax would be.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Member will be going beyond the Amendment if he explains to us the tax which he has in mind that the Chancellor should impose as an alternative.

Mr. Adams: I accept that, Mr. Thomas, and, therefore, I will content myself with suggesting that the tax should be imposed as an alternative to the present duty and I think it may be in order if I develop that point when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Then I may be able to instruct the Chancellor a little more in what I think would be a fair way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. William Keenan: Judging by the number of hon. Members present in the Chamber, probably rather more has been said about

football than many hon. Members can stand, but there are one or two points which I wish to put to the Chancellor.
I should like to know the cost to the Revenue of the exemption of amateur football clubs from taxation. The Chancellor ought to have a look at some of the amateur football clubs. There is one in my area which has always paid, so far as I know, reasonable allowances, and it is still an amateur club and competes in the English Amateur Cup. Not all clubs are as amateur as that one is.
We have heard a good deal today about the value of the provision of relaxation at the weekends to stimulate production. What stimulation of production do we get by people watching county cricket every day of the week? County cricket has never merited any preference over football or any other sport.
There is really no need to take the case for football further because it has already been so well put. I am concerned with two football clubs. The Liverpool club is in my constituency and Everton is on the border. While I know that they resent the fact that football is taxed and that other games are not and that the taxation has been more than it ought to have been—it ought never to have been doubled—and it has increased their difficulties, it has not had the effect of their attendances being reduced to the extent to which some of my hon. Friends have suggested. The quality of the play is very often responsible for reduction in attendances. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) should tell the Barnsley club to spend some of its money to overcome the difficulty that taxation has caused it by getting some new players. Judging by the number of players which the club transferred during the past couple of seasons, and knowing the amount that it received for them, I feel that the club is doing reasonably well, and certainly much better than clubs which have not had such players to transfer.
Suggestions have been made on both sides of Committee for alternative sources of revenue. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who probably expressed it in stronger terms than anybody else, said that we should tax the football pools to make up the difference, suggesting 7½ per cent.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Keenan: I thought somebody suggested 7½ per cent.; but perhaps it was 2½ per cent.
In any case, the football pools are as good a game as anything else for half our adult population. Many hon. Members have expressed moral indignation about betting, but I will bet that a very large percentage of hon. Members fill in football coupons, like I do. I am not trying to justify football pools on any moral grounds, but the fact is that the people want them. I am not saying that they are desirable, but neither is any other form of gambling desirable.
For an alternative source of revenue, the Chancellor might look to the horse racing pools, which collect about £25 million a year and pay nothing at all to the Treasury in taxation. There is also the Stock Exchange, which does a certain amount of gambling, and yet, like the horse racing pools, pays nothing.

Mr. E. Johnson: The hon. Member is mistaken in suggesting that horse racing does not provide revenue for the Treasury. Bookmakers pay a considerable amount in taxation, and horse racing pools are taxed in the same way as are football pools, being promoted by the same people.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman is drawn to pursue this subject, he may be a very long time before he deals with the subject of the exemption of football. I should be glad if he would confine himself to that.

Mr. Keenan: I am simply referring to suggestions of alternative sources of revenue which have been made to the Chancellor in the event of his exempting football. If the hon. Member for Black-ley (Mr. E. Johnson) had been listening carefully, he would not have made such an intervention. I am well aware of what goes on in the alleged sport of horse racing. The horse racing pool is not taxed.

Sir Richard Acland: It is the Totalisator which is taxed.

Mr. Keenan: I want football to be relieved of this taxation, but the Chancellor ought not to impose more taxation on the pools, for they are already taxed enough. The pools provide £250,000 revenue

weekly in stamps and poundage on postal orders. The Treasury are doing very well out of the pools, and I am sure that the Chancellor does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
There is a lot of opposition to professional foothball and it manifests itself as much as anywhere else on the Government Front Bench where the occupants do not like the sport of the workers. Much can be said about amateur cricket in the past. I could tell a good story about one amateur I know who played one game for Lancashire many years ago and got £5 for doing so and is still an amateur. However, we give preference to amateurs as against professionals.
Tennis has been mentioned. What is done with the revenue from the Wimbledon tournament? It must be the greatest income of any sporting organisation in the country. Some tennis players tour the world and are still amateurs. I do not know who pays their expenses.
I hope the Chancellor will look at the matter as it affects football not from the point of view of those whom he consults but from the point of view of the justification for the taxation.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: As I read the Amendment its purpose is to grant the same exemption to football as the Chancellor proposes to grant to cricket. That being so, I could not quite understand the relevance of the remarks of the Financial Secretary, who seemed to think that we should not discuss this at all because the tax had existed for quite a long time. If that is the only kind of defence that the Government can offer, the sooner they call this game off the better. On my reckoning, they are at the moment about 10 goals down, and they have absolutely no defence. The only two hon. Members who have tried to make a defence have succeeded only in putting the ball through their own goal.
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), in a sneering kind of speech that was not, I am sure, approved of by his own side, seemed to think that there was something unhealthy about people going to football matches. He said that he watched them with disdain as they passed along. I wonder what he was doing watching


them? Probably he was on his way to the nearest billiard saloon. Then we had the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who seemed to think that people who watch football matches have a special responsibility for the upkeep of the Welfare State. I presume that people who watch cricket have no such responsibility. At any rate, that is what the hon. Member said.
In discussing this tax, we must take into consideration what was done by the Chancellor last year. It is not good enough to say that other Governments had this tax, and so on. The Labour Government reduced this tax, and last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased it. He increased it, and then he delayed its inception to cover the cricket season. So the cricket clubs, who were getting the full benefit of tax exemption, have never borne the increased tax that the right hon. Gentleman imposed last year, whereas we have had one year's experience of the increased tax on football.
It was said by the Chancellor last night, and has been repeated by the Financial Secretary, that if football clubs are in difficulties, it is not because of the tax. That may be true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking last night about cricket, said that if cricket clubs were in difficulties, it was not because of the tax. What is the justification for using this argument to refuse our Amendment while admitting, when trying to justify the extension of the exemption to cricket, that the tax is not the cause of the difficulties of the cricket clubs? If that is the only kind of defence we are to get, it is not good enough.
If cricket is in difficulties and if it is necessary to give exemption to clubs in what tax they have been paying, it is all the more necessary, since football has borne the increased tax, to recognise that there are football clubs who have had considerable difficulties. We have had figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) which showed quite clearly the difficulties that clubs are experiencing. Judging by the state of most of the professional clubs, there is no question whatever as to whether any profit comes out of football today. The only man who is getting any profit out of football is

the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he must admit that.
We had a speech from the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett), a Scottish Member, who was for a long time a director of one of the premier football clubs in Scotland—Glasgow Rangers. I am perfectly sure that in all that time he did not make any money out of it. Let us leave aside for a moment the one or two main football clubs and come down to the ordinary first division team, and even the second division team. In Ayrshire, we do not have a first division team; we have two second division teams, or "B" division teams, as they are called in Scotland. I guarantee that in the past five or six years the directors of those clubs have had to put their hands in their pockets. It was only a year ago that the local football team—Kilmarnock—was inviting the public to subscribe for some shares, and there was no guarantee or promise that any profit would ever come out from those shares.
We have had the Revenue considerations dragged in, and I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary would be consistent. One minute they talk about principles; when dealing with one Amendment they say that the revenue considerations do not really matter. That is what we got when discussing the small amount of money that it would have taken to accept an Amendment which we had down on the question of amateur theatricals and operatic societies. Then we had the high-sounding phrases, "It is not the money that matters, it is the principle." But evidently the principle does not matter now; we can discriminate as much as we like, and we get the argument of revenue considerations and of the £1,500,000. Really, in a Budget of this size, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been able to give away so much money, will surely not try to convince us that the revenue consideration is really an important one.
The Financial Secretary said that he would not deal with the question of discrimination. I do not see how he can avoid it. We are trying to put football in the same place as cricket, and the hon. Gentleman should justify cricket remaining there as much as we are trying to justify the inclusion of football. What it


comes down to is that there is no justification in reason for this discrimination.
On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when the Chancellor was speaking, my first impression was that all he was doing in this direction was indulging a personal preference for a particular sport.

Mr. R. A. Butler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman what my feeling was. His proposal certainly has not been justified by any real reason, and there has been no justification as to why the exemption should not be extended to football.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of cricket having a special place, and talked about English tradition. If the right hon. Gentleman would remember that he is Chancellor of the Exchequer for the whole of the United Kingdom, he might do fairly well, because as far as Scotsmen are concerned cricket has no traditional place in our life. We consider it a very nice way of wasting a day, and when we do play cricket on a Saturday afternoon the two teams have to be in and our between the hours of half-past two and half-past seven. Had the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason why he was wiping out Entertainments Duty from cricket was because in England the game had ceased to be entertaining, there might have been a certain amount of justification.
As for the questions of cost, tradition, and all the rest, if there is any tradition at all in Scotland it is for football. The position in football is precarious, not just for small teams, but for many teams that are well known. There is one team which is among the finest exponents of football in the whole of Britain, a team called Motherwell. That team has now been relegated to the second division. I am perfectly sure that over the next season they will find themselves in considerable financial difficulties.
English Members may not realise that in the second division the guaranteed "gate" to a visiting club is only £100; and in about eight cases out of 10 that guarantee is all that the visiting club gets. When sums like that are involved, the increase in Entertainments Duty weighs

heavily. If it is not the only factor, it is a major factor in the financial difficulties of certain teams; and the natural result is what we have seen in the past.
I listened with sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) relating how this year his local team had had to transfer all their players. But what happens, not just in one year, but in practically every year, with Scottish clubs? Apart from Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Hibernian, as soon as clubs get a good player he is gone. They cannot keep him. They would like to retain him, but they must transfer him. What it comes to is that the Chancellor has increased the Entertainments Duty, and it has to be made up out of local patronage and patriotism.
In this question of exempting cricket alone the right hon. Gentleman has drawn not merely a line; he has drawn a circle, he has isolated it. He has said that this sport only shall benefit. There is no justification in logic. Certainly, the man in Glasgow, Kilmarnock and Aberdeen cannot see any justification in the kind of reason given here why a person going to see a cricket game, where he gets hours and hours of so-called entertainment, should pay no entertainment tax whereas, because his traditional game is football, he has to pay tax. I sincerely hope that, recognising that the ordinary man in Britain is a person who judges things on their reasonableness, the Chancellor will think again.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I wish to make a few brief comments on the speech of the Financial Secretary because his, and the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), are the only speeches we have had or are likely to have against this Amendment. The Financial Secretary began his argument by saying that we had had this tax for a long time. The Football Association point out that they were first invited to bear this tax as an emergency measure in 1916. When a tax is imposed as an emergency measure its continuance year after year is surely a matter of grievance to the person on whom it is imposed, and not, as the Financial Secretary seemed to argue, that it is actually a justification, having first been imposed as a matter of emergency, why it should now be continued indefinitely.
The Financial Secretary then skated very lightly over the fact that the rate of tax was increased by the Chancellor last year. In doing that he used the phrase "at various rates." When his attention was drawn to it he said that he would not deal with that aspect of the matter because the Amendment did not ask for a reduction in the rate, but for complete exemption. I ask him and the Chancellor whether it is not still open to the Chancellor to say that he will consider a reduction in the rate and invite my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), in view of that, to withdraw his Amendment. What view my hon. Friend would take I cannot say, unless and until the offer is made, but surely the Financial Secretary, if he wanted to put up anything better than a blank wall, might at least have made a suggestion along those lines.
Thirdly, the Financial Secretary laid great stress on the concession which we all agree has been given to amateur sport, but when he did that he completely neglected the fact that if the standards of football are to be maintained that can only be done on a basis of professional sport; and that it is the professional side of the game which enables the Chancellor to collect any revenue and which enables the football pools, from which the Chancellor also derives revenue, to have any existence.
I wish particularly to draw the Chancellor's attention to the position of some of the less prosperous professional clubs. When I say "less prosperous" I am not thinking merely of those who may happen to be in the third division, because the club for which I have a particular affection—Fulham—is not in the third division. Not long ago it was in the first division.
I am bound to say that if the Chancellor tried to arrange this tax by the position clubs were in he would land himself in difficulties, and I doubt whether it would be welcome to the football world as a whole. But one might look at the way in which this tax is assessed, and see whether there is any way of making it more proportionate to ability to pay, because that is not necessarily dependent on whether one is in the first, second or third division or in league football at all. There are considerable differences between clubs in respect of their ability to pay, and if the Chancellor

was concerned with anything more than a stone wall he could give some attention to that aspect of the matter.
7.45 p.m.
We have been told that there are revenue considerations, but here again the Chancellor has been offered a series of possible alternative sources of taxation ranging from the practical suggestion made, I think half inadvertently but subsequently fathered on to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), through a great many other proposals, and many more which would have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams) had they been in order, and several others which I should like to make myself if time, and your regard, Mr. Thomas, to what is actually before the Committee will permit me. There is really no lack of alternative possibilities, but there again the Financial Secretary was not particularly helpful.
I was speaking of the position of certain of the less well-off professional clubs. The relevant Act talks about clubs and institutions "run for profit." That is a ludicrous description of some professional football clubs; they are not within sight of a profit; they owe their existence very often to the outstanding generosity of quite a limited number of public-spirited people. They had their burdens added to by the Chancellor's action last year, and now they are faced not merely with the refusal of this Amendment but with no possibility of encouragement.
Finally, the Financial Secretary said that we had accepted the principle of discrimination and invited us on this side of the Committee to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps I ought to delay my remarks until a more convenient moment. The Financial Secretary said that we had accepted discrimination, and he asked whether we, on this side of the Committee, could urge any reason why football should be on one side of the discrimination rather than another.

Mr. James Simmons: The Prime Minister has been sent off.

Mr. Stewart: No doubt he has been despatched to fetch the Financial Secretary.
There are reasons why, if there is to be discrimination, football should be on


the favourable side of the fence. The claims of many different sports have been advanced on previous Amendments, and various types of football have been mentioned in the debate on this Amendment. I would say without fear of contradiction, however, that although there are a number of games to which there are strong local attachments, if anyone had honestly to answer the question, "What is the national game of the British people?" he would have to say, "Association football."
My right hon. Friend referred to it as our national winter pastime. Since the winter is, on average, much more of a national institution than summer, and lasts from September to May, there can be no question that when we speak of Association football that is the game of the British people. I do not think it matters very much by which game the rising generation learn to maintain their health, develop their bodies and enjoy themselves, but if there is one game above all that sets every boy wanting to kick a ball about it is Association football. That is why I say that if there is to be discrimination it should be on the favourable side of the fence.
To make myself heard at times I have taken a little longer than I should have done, but I would, finally, remind the Chancellor that he has really had no support at all in opposing the Amendment except from the Financial Secretary and the utterly miserable speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. He took the view that people who watch cricket are engaged in a dignified pastime, even if they are asleep, whereas he argued that watching football was a form of mass hysteria. He added to that, by way of discrediting the Opposition, the old argument about our becoming a nation of watchers. Of course people watch. Why not? We do not say this of the Royal Academy. We do not say, "Why are you paying to watch? Why do you not paint pictures for yourself?" At the same time, we may take the view that there are enough people painting pictures already.
We do not put up a notice in the Members' Gallery of the House of Commons saying, "Do not be content to be a watcher: stand for Parliament yourself." It is entirely proper that we should watch

games. We are not becoming a nation of watchers to the exclusion of playing games. More people are playing games than ever before. We are finding difficulty in providing playing fields. This is partly because people can watch the games they like played at a first-class level. That is the importance of professional sport. I hope that if the Chancellor cannot accept the Amendment he will try to find a way in which to make a concession.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am very sorry that the Minister of Health is not in his place now, although he was here a little earlier. I should have liked to have him here to advise the Chancellor while I make my speech. I thought at one time that the Chancellor had sent for him in order to rebut by arguments, but perhaps his presence and his absence are merely coincidental. I am sorry that the Chancellor seems so unhappy today. I take a professional interest in him. I have seen him wilting steadily ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) spoke to him in those dulcet and kind tones.
I thought that when my hon. Friend sat down the Chancellor would say, "I do not think that anything further need be said. Let us call it a day. I give in." I remind him that my hon. Friend was sincere when he declared that we did not want a Pyrrhic victory, although we are confident that we should defeat the Chancellor in a Division. But we do not want to embarrass him. The Coronation episode is coming along very soon and we would very much rather hear that he would surrender to us than that we should be forced to bring him to miserable defeat.
If the Chancellor is unhappy today, his must blame not only himself but his advisers, because they have not classified the type of sport which ought to be taxed and the type that should go duty-free. Sports tend to fall into three different types. First, there is the sport where only human beings compete or emulate each other's performances. Secondly, there are the sports where human beings make use of animals to assist them. Thirdly, there are those sports where human beings do not compete at all but


only animals compete and human beings gamble on their performances.
In the speedway the machine is used by a human being and that brings the sport within the first category. If the Chancellor thinks of the matter in that way—and I am sure that it is not a new thought to him—he would certainly say that there should be no duty at all where human beings exercise their bodies for the purpose of recreation or to provide entertainment. If, however, in horse racing one has to consider the form of the horse as being more important than the form of the jockey, the right hon. Gentleman might have second thoughts about that and put that sport into another category.
When we come to dog racing, and I hope that I am not making myself unpopular with anybody—

Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order. I have a great deal to answer in this debate. Now it appears that I shall have to give an answer on the whole structure of the Entertainments Duty. This is the third debate that we have had on this subject. The first was about amateurs, the second was last night and the other was about football. Unless we adhere to the question of football, I am afraid that I shall need a long time in which to reply.

The Temporary Chairman: It has been made clear during the debate that I wanted the discussion to be confined to the subject of football. But it has also been clear that on both sides of the Committee during the course of the day illustrations have been given. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not prolong his illustration.

Dr. Stross: I am most grateful for that Ruling. I am very glad to know that the Chancellor was able to cry touché on something I was saying to him. I shall not waste time by discussing the medical and health aspects of these games, but it appears to be the custom to say a few words about the sport which is played in one's constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South gave many examples and spoke most eloquently about the matter, I shall be brief.
The Chancellor should be reminded once again that teams which are not in the first division tend to have serious

financial difficulties. The team in Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke City, is the greatest and best in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is why they went down."] We were able to win the cup by proxy by lending one player to Blackpool. We made that sacrifice as well as the sacrifice of another player who is one of the best centre-halves ever produced by us, and we have a right to consideration.
The Chancellor was very kind to us on the subject of cricket last year. He kept his promise. I am not one who thinks that cricket is inferior to football or vice versa. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the same sincere and careful consideration to football between now and next season as he gave to cricket. The fact that £1,500,000 is involved should not press too harshly upon him. He should bear in mind what I said at the start—that if sport is properly classified and indexed we should know where to tax and where to set sport free.

Mr. George Sylvester: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for Rugby League football. Naturally, as I live in a Rugby League area, I have a bias in favour of this type of game but not for any one team. I am in the fortunate position of being the only Member of the House of Commons who has two Rugby League teams in his constituency. Therefore, I cannot afford to have a bias in favour of any one team.
As a result of the Chancellor's proposals last year both the teams in my constituency—Castleford and Featherstone— are in an invidious position. Neither team has a large town to back it. The total population of the area which supports the Featherstone team is less than 20,000. The Financial Secretary said that one of the reasons cricket was relieved of duty was that the proceeds were only £80,000. He said that a reduction in the duty on Rugby League football would mean a loss to the Treasury of £100,000.
8.0 p.m.
Because of the increase in duty, the Featherstone team are due to pay over £1,000 more in 1952–53 than they paid in 1951–52. It works out that, in this small urban area of less than 20,000 population, football supporters are having to pay one hundredth part of the total duty


which the Chancellor expects to collect from this type of football. One could agree with the Chancellor or the Treasury if the profit from these games were going into private hands or in dividends or anything of that kind, but the fact is that the Rugby League spend their money in helping to finance junior teams which are, first of all, breeding grounds for potential footballers, and which, secondly, render a great service, because the intermediate Rugby League teams are composed of lads of from 15 to 18 who have just left school and who otherwise might be drifting on to the streets and doing things which we would not like them to do. By becoming interested in the game, they are induced to live as good citizens and follow the healthy pastime of football.
These intermediate and junior teams are classed as amateurs, and it is true that they are relieved of paying duty, but the attendances at their games are not sufficient to make it possible for them to keep going, because it is only natural that football supporters will follow the first-class teams. What actually happens, therefore, is that the Rugby League make grants to these junior teams either for the purpose of paying the rents of their grounds or assisting in their purchase. I have one case, not in my own constituency but in my home town, in which the Rugby League purchased the ground for the junior team.
One can see how difficult it is for these teams in the Rugby League areas, and especially in areas of small populations, to keep going, and why they find this duty such a burden. If it were not for the supporters' clubs, which raise money by various means all through the season in order to help to keep the clubs going, they would not be able to continue at all, and the fact is that the supporters of these clubs are actually paying twice, because they pay through the various activities of the supporters' club and also have to pay the admission charge to the games and the extra duty imposed by the Chancellor.
Therefore, I feel that the plea which has already been made by my hon. Friends is such that the least that I can do is to support it. While the Financial Secretary has not given us much hope

that he is prepared to do anything, I trust that the Treasury will look into the matter again, at least as far as the Rugby League clubs are concerned.

Sir Leslie Plummer: When, about four hours ago, this spate of magnificent but slightly repetitive oratory began, the Chancellor intervened to say that he found that he had satisfied the members of the football club which he graces by being president with the action he had taken. It is perfectly true that, in his constituency, there are many people who support what he has done, but, as a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman, I must utter a warning.
Only a few days after the Chancellor received the plaudits of the local football club for what he had done, the supporters of that club went to the polling booths and saw to it that, in that particular town, the central town in that right hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Tory candidates were at the bottom of the poll, and that, for the first time, Labour was the strongest party on the urban council, and, clearly, from now on, always will be the strongest. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that the Chancellor should not be deluded by the temporary applause of the local football club, but should recognise that, in his constituency and outside, this act of discrimination will not bring him "rosies all the way."
I do not believe that there is a class attitude to cricket, or that it is a middle-class game vis-à-vis football being a working-class game, but I do suggest that one's attitude to cricket does depend to a great deal on where one lives and on the facilities which there are for playing cricket. The elevation of cricket almost into a way of life—a similar description as that used for agriculture by some people—takes place only in those areas where people themselves can play the game, and it is for this reason that football is really our national game, because the attitude towards the game is very largely conditioned by the position and conditions in which people are living.
I want to give, as an illustration of the importance of a reduction in the Entertainments Duty on football, some facts and figures about my own constituency. Mine is a vastly different constituency from that of the Chancellor.


His is a widely scattered, rather agricultural area in which practically every village and small town has a playing field. Mine is an overcrowded London constituency, in which there is not one single full-sized football field or cricket pitch. There is nowhere where children can go to learn to play the game of football on a full-sized pitch. We have 1,000 people for every half acre of open recreation ground that we have left, and the L.C.C. lay down a minimum standard this year that there should be 2½ acres of recreation ground for every 1,000 persons.
In future, the rule is to be that there should be four acres, but today we have less than half an acre for every 1,000 people, and no available places where children can learn to play games. So what do they do? They play games in the street, and the only game which they can play properly in the street, out of which they can have fun and which costs them very little, is football.
Therefore, we breed in my constituency what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Bell) regards as something really offensive and wrong—a race of spectators—but they are spectators because they cannot become a race of participants. When they are a race of spectators, what do they do but, quite naturally, gravitate towards the Millwall Football Club, which is a team of some merit, although I myself confess to having a more aristocratic taste, having been brought up on first division teams. Nevertheless, Millwall are a great team, and missed promotion by only a few points.
What is the position of Millwall today? As a result of the increase in the duty last year, Millwall's contribution went up from £3,800 to £10,100, and, if it had been a full year and the other three games had been included, it would have been £12,000. As a result of that, not only have the attendances gone down, but this particular club is £2,000 worse off than it was during the previous year. Football teams are making very considerable contributions towards the Exchequer anyway. The cost of a football with the tax on it. is about £5, and the cost of travelling around the country has gone up enormously.
All these things are hindrances, and there is, of course, a fear that if the

Chancellor were to meet our demands here, and put back the duty to the level at which it stood last year, there would be profiteering by some of the clubs, who would stick to the money and use it to meet these rising costs. I am empowered to say that Mr. Hewitt, the manager of the Millwall Football Club, would devote any reduction in the tax on football which the Chancellor might give to reducing the admission price. That is a magnificent gesture from a club which is not doing so well financially as it was two years ago.
We have been asked to suggest how the revenue could be raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. Keenan) suggested increasing the tax on racing. Quite clearly, racing could support a much more swingeing tax than it is paying at present. The spectacle of thousands of people trooping off to a racecourse on every working day and adding nothing to the production of the wealth of the country is not a pleasant sight at a time when workers are being told that it is their job to produce more. If the Chancellor were to impose a steeply graded tax between the Silver Ring and the Tatter-sall enclosure he would raise a considerable amount of money, and if it results in more people staying at work that would not be bad either.
Therefore, the Chancellor has a chance of easing the situation a little more and of making himself really popular with the working people. They would understand a gesture of this kind much more readily than the gesture he has made in the last few weeks—returning money to people who do not need it so much as the working class.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the fact we have already had a long debate I want want to say only two things, and I do so for two reasons: first, because the Financial Secretary has invited suggestions, and secondly, because a number of references have been made in this debate to the club which I have the honour to represent and of which I have been a supporter for nearly 40 years, Arsenal, who are this year's League champions.
It would be a mistake to think that the opposition to the duty on football comes only from the smaller or third division


clubs. In fact, the Arsenal have asked me to voice their opposition to the present rate of Entertainments Duty on football. It may be that they are in a happier position than some of the smaller clubs, but the injury done to football by the existing duty is widespread. I would remind the Chancellor of what he said on 6th May last year when he intervened in the course of some remarks which I was making. He was then justifying the increase on the duty on football and he intervened to say that it was not the clubs who would suffer so much as the public, because the extra duty was passed on to the spectators.
The public suffer just as much as the clubs, and I was alarmed when the Financial Secretary seemed to say that the Chancellor would look at this matter to see how it affected the smaller and third division clubs. Quite obviously he cannot discriminate between one kind of football club and another or between the supporters of one club and another. All followers of football are affected equally in his matter.
The Chancellor has got himself into this difficulty by having increased the duty on football and other sports last year. It is from that error that the whole of the trouble in which he now finds himself stems. I can, of course, follow the arguments against taking off the duty altogether, but the Chancellor has promised to keep it under review, and if he cannot exempt football altogether, I should like him to consider finding some other way of modifying the discrimination between one game and another. Would he consider whether he ought not to reduce the rate of duty on football and other games to the level at which it was before he raised it last year? Would he bear in mind that, as regards the Arsenal, the effect of the increased duty imposed last year was to increase the Entertainments Duty paid by the Arsenal from approximately £17,000 to £41,000, an increase of about 150 per cent., which is more or less common over the whole field?
8.15 p.m.
This increased levy bears most hardly on those who do not buy tickets for the stands, but who go on the terraces. There, as he knows, the lowest price at present is 1s. 9d. One of the rules of the Football Association is that all clubs must charge

the same minimum price for the lowest priced seats. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider raising the present limit of exemption from duty from 1s. to 1s. 6d. The effect of that would be that all clubs could reduce their minimum charge from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 6d. This, in the case of the Arsenal, would save some £8,000 in Duty, and substantially all this reduction would be passed on to the public supporters on the terraces. By assisting the public he would equally assist the clubs, because they would get larger attendances and would therefore benefit.

Sir R. Acland: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) because I differ from him, my constituency not having the honour to contain any football team so eminent as the Arsenal.
I wish to make one comment on the speech of the Financial Secretary, because when he was speaking of what the Chancellor had done for football in general he laid great emphasis on the concession given to amateurs. He conveyed the impression that there were thousands of young men playing football every Saturday afternoon in hundreds of amateur clubs all over the country which in the past year paid tax and which in the future will not.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that that was quite a false impression, and that the amateur clubs which will receive the benefit are few in number and far between geographically. Of all the thousands of young men playing football on a given afternoon in their hundreds of amateur clubs, there are probably not more than one in 20 who play any game on which Entertainments Duty is charged. The rest—the vast majority—play on open grounds where there is no gate at all and where the only money they receive is collected by taking round a box and shaking it on the touchline. Those clubs, of course, are neither better off nor worse off this year than they were last as far as tax is concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman's main reason for resisting this Amendment was that the revenue could not stand it; an eminently respectable reason. I have therefore been much impressed by the fact that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East.


most of my hon. Friends have concentrated their attention on the smaller clubs and those in the greatest financial difficulty at the present time. This sentiment has been expressed by the Financial Secretary, by the hon. Member the voice from Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I was particularly glad to hear the hon. Member for Barry because the last time I saw Barry Town play they were defeated by Gravesend in a sensational finish. All these hon. Gentlemen and others have expressed their interest in the smaller clubs. That being so, I invite the Chancellor to look at the principle involved in the last Amendment on the Paper to this Clause which stands in the name of several hon. Members and myself.
Perhaps I might be allowed briefly to draw attention to the principle involved and to commend it to the Chancellor so that he may think about it between now and the Report stage. Here is a device for remitting the first £100 of the tax when the total gate does not exceed a certain figure. The Amendment suggests that figure might be £1,000, but if the Chancellor does not like that figure he could choose another which would not result in his losing very much revenue from the big revenue makers such as the Arsenal.
It is clear that the principle of that Amendment would cost the Chancellor almost nothing on the big money raisers and would offer very great benefit to the smaller clubs. If, like other hon. Members, I may instance a club in my own constituency to illustrate the point, I should like to give one or two round figures. I leave out the shillings and pence, the pounds and even the tens of pounds, since these would be particular to the one club I have in mind. If I give round figures I believe they will be found representative of those of large numbers of clubs.
The Gravesend and Northfleet Club makes a loss of about £500 a year. The loss is increasing and it is covered by the generosity of "investors." That word should be put in quotation marks because they invest out of local patriotism and do not expect to see a profit on their money. The "gates" amount to just under £6,000 for 12 months, and the tax to some £750. So the income of the club is just over

£5,000. But its expenditure is nearly £8,000. It may be wondered how, with an expenditure of £8,000 and an income of £5,000 the club suffers a loss of only about £500 a year. The answer is, of course, that the balance is made up by the activity of the supporters' club, which raises something like £2,000 to £3,000.
Those being the figures, I think that the Financial Secretary was quite wrong when he said that this tax carries out the principle that we should impose an Entertainments Duty on people who pay to see a professional entertainment, because if the supporters' club were not in vigorous activity there would be no Gravesend and Northfleet Club for anybody to go to see. That must apply to a very large number of comparable clubs. The fact is that the tax is not being imposed on those who go to see professional sport but is being imposed on the voluntary efforts of those who work to sustain a supporters' club; and there is nothing so bad as putting a tax on voluntary efforts.
That being so, I earnestly hope that the Chancellor and his advisers, between now and the Report stage, will look at the principle embodied in the Amendment, which I have already mentioned as on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) and myself and others of my hon. Friends.

Mr. R. A. Butler: rose—

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I have no objection if the Chancellor prefers to speak first, but it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to make a few suggestions to him or bowl a few balls or attempt to score a few goals.

Mr. Butler: indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell: If there were any doubts in the minds of the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary about the strong feelings which exist in the constituencies about this matter, by now those doubts should have been dispelled. This has been no party debate. It is quite true that rather more of my hon. Friends than hon. Members opposite, have spoken, but that is simply due to the fact that, for reasons with which we are all familiar, rather more of my hon. Friends represent constituencies where there are important


Association and Rugby League football clubs.
It is undoubtedly the case that in those constituencies, particularly among supporters of the clubs, there is strong objection to the discrimination which is being introduced in the proposals in this Bill, especially in view of the difficult financial position from which so many of these clubs are suffering. The Financial Secretary tried to answer the case which has been put by my hon. Friends. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. It often happens that Financial Secretaries have to defend bad cases: but this was a particularly bad case and it was obvious from the way the hon. Gentleman spoke that he was aware that it was so.
He descended to the flimsiest arguments of a very legalistic character. He showed himself very much lacking in humanity. He did not seem to appreciate the human side of this problem and I strongly endorse the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that the Financial Secretary should go with him to the clubs and pubs and hear what is said about the Treasury and the tax which they imposed last year.
The Financial Secretary said that the tax had been imposed for a long time. But it has been imposed on cricket for a long time. There is no distinction there. He drew attention to the fact that Sir Stanley Rous last year had been anxious that amateur clubs should be excluded, thereby appearing to imply that the Football Association did not bother at all about anything else. I think that the hon. Gentleman has probably been corrected sufficiently by my hon. Friends, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) who quoted the request from the Arsenal, one of the leading clubs, to support this Amendment.
The Financial Secretary made great play of the fact that this Amendment did not merely return us to the position before last year but sought to remove the tax altogether. That is perfectly true. But are we to understand from what he said that there is a possibility, at any rate, that the Chancellor will consider the possibility of bringing the tax back to

what it was in 1951? Although that certainly would not remove the grievance that exists because of this discrimination, it would be an improvement on the present position.
I would say—I do not know whether my hon. Friends would agree with me— that it is really the financial situation of the clubs which is our main concern here, and therefore even a concession of that kind would be welcomed. Indeed, if the Chancellor has any intention of following the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) in the Amendment which was not called, that action would do something to help these smaller clubs. If the Chancellor is prepared to consider those suggestions, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), though not entirely satisfied, would respond in a very satisfactory manner.
All we had from the Financial Secretary, in explanation of what the Chancellor was going to do, were some very vague words indeed. I took down his words, and this is what he said: "The Chancellor will not ignore any developments which may or may not take place.' I am delighted to hear that that is in deed the case, and that the Chancellor will not ignore the developments which may or may not take place, but it does not really reassure us that he has any serious intention of reconsidering this matter.
8.30 p.m.
The Chancellor began the whole of this discussion in his speech on the Budget statement by giving all sorts of reasons why cricket should be singled out —that it was somehow or other a more amateur game, that it was a traditional sport, and that anyway it did not cost him very much money to give up the tax on it. But it is clear that he has been forced to abandon every one of those arguments. I need not go over them again. My hon. Friends have made the position perfectly clear.
The Chancellor is driven back, I think, to one argument only, and that is that the situation of cricket financially was so bad that it was essential to take this step of exempting cricket from tax altogether and by implication, therefore, that the football clubs were not at all in the same


position. That is the only argument that is left to the right hon. Gentleman. Yet we have had extremely little argument from him on that point. He has not told us exactly how the financial position of the county cricket clubs compares with that of the Rugby League clubs. We have not had any satisfactory answer to the points made by my hon. Friends. As I said last night, half the Rugby League clubs two years ago were making losses, and I have no doubt that their position was far worse last season.
We have had no answer to the many illustrations given by my hon. Friends about the difficult situation of many of the Association football clubs. It is not good enough for the Financial Secretary to ask whether the tax has catastrophic effects. He does not claim that it has catastrophic effects on cricket. The fact is that when these clubs get into real difficulties—whether by reason solely of the tax or because money does not go as far as it used to go, or because there is a more deflationary situation—whatever the reason, if they are likely to have to shut up shop altogether, then it really is essential for the Chancellor to reconsider this tax.
The Chancellor made one rather striking admission in his speech last night. He confessed that he had made this concession on cricket partly because he was afraid that he could not carry a majority of the Committee with him. I submit that that is an argument that he should bear in mind very closely this year. I would remind him that a number of his hon. Friends have spoken most strongly in support of this Amendment. I can assure him that, from his own point of view, none of us wishes to see such a promising career cut short in mid-stream, and we prefer that he should once again find that discretion was the better part of valour.
I have been wondering what other proposal or offer I could make to him in the hope that he would see where his own interests lie. The only thing I can suggest is this. We saw not long ago in a certain television programme that he produced a little cricket bat which I understand was presented to him by various of his hon. Friends. The cricket bat was signed by those gentlemen. I am going to make him an offer. He can

have from us either a Soccer ball or a Rugby ball. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] He will observe how generous my hon. Friends are. Of course, I must make it plain that they will have to pay for this ball. Not only that, but we will sign the ball. Every person who has spoken in this debate will sign it. In addition, we will have no objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer producing it in his next television programme. Of course, that will give us a bit of advertisement as well, but I know that he is not a man who would begrudge us that little bit of publicity.
If he can only make this concession and agree to exempt football as well as cricket from this tax, we will, as I say, present him with this ball. We shall be delighted to do it in any way that he likes. We will have a special ceremony for it if that suits him. He will have this delightful object for life. He will be able to point to it with pride when his grandchildren grow up. He will be able to say, "This was presented to me not only by my own supporters but by the whole House of Commons." With this offer before him, will he please come to his senses and give us this Amendment?

Mr. R. A. Butler: If it were the case that all the hon. Members who have taken part in this debate were to sign these footballs—both Rugby and Association —we should have to have very large balls, because I have ascertained from the Chair that some 29 speakers have taken part in the debate. I do, however, value very much the solicitude which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is showing for my welfare, and were I not to find, in the beautifully bound copies of HANSARD that I have before me, the views and opinions of so many hon. and right hon. Members opposite who agreed to the action I have taken upon cricket and placed their names on the Order Paper asking me to make a concession in favour of cricket, I might feel very much more in need of the footballs that the right hon. Gentleman has offered me.
The reason for this Amendment arises from the fact that a concession has been made in the case of cricket. It is, therefore, urged by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that a similar concession should be made in regard to football.


Looking at this matter purely from the point of view of revenue—because I do not want to repeat the speeches I have made in previous debates on this subject —and in the hard-hearted way I have to look at it, there is a difference in a concession of about £80,000 and a concession of £1½ million. There is a vital difference between what has already been agreed by the Committee in the debate we had last night and the concession which is now asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that a large portion of the sports section of the structure of the Entertainments Duty shall be removed from the middle, where it is now, and that a concession should be made amounting to about £1½ million. Despite the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman I must say quite flatly that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, and the sooner we come to a decision on this subject the better.
I want to make one or two observations upon what has been said. When the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) dealt with the Entertainments Duty in 1946, the structure was as follows: Horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing were in with the cinemas, at the top—and football, boxing and cricket were in with the theatres, at the bottom. The story that follows should be listened to by hon. Members opposite because the alterations in the Entertainments Duty hitherto have been made by Chancellors of the Exchequer almost entirely under pressure from hon. Members, so if there is a difficulty about this duty now it is as a result of previous pressure by hon. Members.
This fact was accentuated in 1948, when it was found necessary to reduce the scale of duty for the theatres. At that time, therefore, owing to the reduction of duty in respect of theatres, those sports which were in the same scale of duty gained a reduction which was quite unintentional in the mind of the creator of the Entertainments Duty structure—the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. When I came along I succeeded a most dreadful row and revolution on the subject of speedway racing, in which the Tight hon. Member for Leeds, South had been submitted to the most obscene form of pressure groups—from his own supporters—ever known in this country.
Happily for this country he now sits on the other side of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to stand up to that pressure as best he could and he did so with considerable energy. He was like a fox pursued by the hounds, and at length he reached his lair only by covering his own scent by saying that he would institute an inquiry into the matter. That inquiry is what I found on assuming office after his untimely "death." I also found the mangled remains not only of the right hon. Gentleman but of the Entertainments Duty structure. I therefore proceeded to readjust the duty not according to the lines I necessarily thought right, but on lines which were in response to the inquiry and what had gone before. Having accepted those lines, I naturally took responsibility for them, which is all I could do.
The result of that inquiry was that a new group, which included sports, was set up in the centre of the Entertainments Duty structure. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are now proposing to put a bomb under the new Entertainments Duty structure and remove from it the sport which provides the main amount of duty. If the Committee insist on that procedure going through tonight they will deal a very serious body blow—we are coming to boxing very shortly—against the Entertainments Duty structure as a whole. Frankly, I could not stand for such a step being taken tonight in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It would have an effect upon all the other revenue we get from Entertainments Duty, and that would be wrong.
I revert to the remarks which I made in the debate last night when I quoted from my speech of 6th May about cricket, a speech in response to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I then said that the position of cricket was quite different, and, in column 282 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th May, 1952, I am reported as saying that I would review the position of cricket. At the end of that debate we decided to exempt cricket during last summer.
On examining the matter again for this year I was, naturally, aware of the difficulty of treating one sport differently from another but, as a result of the year's experience, I came to the conclusion that not only had we been right to exempt cricket last year but that we should be


wrong, and it would be disastrous for cricket, if we brought cricket back again into the Entertainments Duty structure and taxed it. I decided that the only logical step was to leave it out.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South asked how I could take a step like that, and do it on the pretext that cricket clubs are suffering, when I did not give the figures to show the difference in suffering between cricket and football clubs. I think that that is the best debating point he made, and it has great validity. My reason is this. If I am to give the knowledge which must come to me of the position of cricket clubs, I think it would make the situation for cricket more difficult than it is. It is not for me to cry stinking fish about the position of cricket clubs or to retail the balance sheets of cricket clubs of which I am not a member. I cannot take that step. Nor can I take such a step with football clubs. I am afraid I must, without being pontifical, ask hon. Members to take it from me that I reached my decision on the position of cricket from the evidence put before me and in the light of the arguments I gave last night, and only after very great care and consideration.
Hon. Members will say that there are football clubs which are in a bad way, and that is true. The position was beautifully summed up by Sir Stanley Rous last year, when he said:
I do hope M.P.s will stress the fact that the Association Football League is not really composed of a few big League clubs. It is true that they attract the money and the tax, but what I am so deeply concerned about is the effect of the Entertainments Duty on thousands of amateur clubs up and down the country, with their million players or so."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 321.]
That was quoted last year. It was precisely those small clubs which I have attempted to help through the remission of duty on amateur sport and I believe that has made a considerable difference to certain clubs.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred to the club in my town, attaching to that various rather undesirable observations about the results of the local government elections there. We can deal with local government elections conducted on a very small poll, at a later date, as the hon. Member will see, being one of my neighbours in the

country. In any case, I do not mix overmuch in local government affairs, as I am too busy. There are clubs such as that in my home town and elsewhere which will profit from that exemption, but that still leaves a variety of small clubs, namely, the third division clubs and other small professional clubs, to which reference was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who also referred to our happy association in the field of foreign affairs.
I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot go further than the Financial Secretary has gone. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South was worried about the language of the Financial Secretary which he found somewhat jejune—namely, "I might or might not pay attention to developments which might or might not take place." The Financial Secretary is obviously preening himself for promotion if he can use language which so well protects his chief. I think he deserves every congratulation. It reminds me of those unhappy days when I used to stonewall, when I opposed the right hon. Gentleman when I was at the Foreign Office. I am glad that my pupil, the Financial Secretary, does it as well as I did.
I will say this in supplement to what the Financial Secretary said, that I will undertake to watch the incidence of the duty on that type of football club during the coming season. But I cannot go any further than that. I must ask the Committee for an absolute decision to reject this Amendment. Whatever the result of any watching may be over the year I must confess that I need the revenue which comes in from the football duty. I regard it as an integral part of the structure of the duty as a whole, and I think that there are clubs who can afford to pay, if we are to have any Entertainments Duty at all.
Therefore, in view of these arguments I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment which has been moved and supported so movingly by so many hon. Members, and which has provided us with a typical experience of this place, namely, a debate on something which interests everybody and conducted in a good spirit.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 278.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.


Adams, Richard
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.


Alton, Soholefield (Crewe)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Nally, W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Oldfieid, W. H.


Aulee, R. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.


Baird, J.
Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.


Balfour, A.
Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Page I, R. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bence, C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Pannell, Charles


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Parker, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F H.
Paton, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Peart, T F.


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Porter, G.


Boardman, H.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holt, A. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Brockway, A F.
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accnngton)
Richards, R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon A.


Carmichael, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross William


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Colick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddoek, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T.W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington, Arthur


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Slater, Mrs. (stoke, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kinley, J.
Slater, J.(Durham, Sedgefield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee. Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, J.W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt Col. M.
Sparks, J.A.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Mclnnes, J.
Strauss, Rt Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Edward (Lowastoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, lorwerlh (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Marauand, Rt Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thorneycrofl, Harry (Clayton)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, E.


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Timmons, J.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, F.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Usborne, H. C.


Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N.
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Glanville, James
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W.




Watkins, T. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wigg, George
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Weilzman, D.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Willey, F. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)



White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Alport, C. J. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Lockwood, Ll.-Col. J. C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Finlay, Graeme
Low, A. R. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Arbuthnol, John
Fleteher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
McAdden, S. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fort, R.
McCallum, Major D.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Foster, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Baker, P. A. D.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKibbin, A. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Banks, Col. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barber, Anthony
Gammans, L. D.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Baxter, A. B.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Butler, Sir R. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major S. F.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Texteth)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Birth, Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, Angus


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maudling, R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Braine, B. R.
Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bullard, D. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nutting, Anthony


Burden, F. F. A.
Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Odey, G. W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, I. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian(Weston-super-Mare)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kerr, H. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Renton, D. L. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Donner, P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robertson, Sir David


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robson-Brown, W.


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, Martin
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Roper, Sir Harold


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard







Russell, R. S.
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Studholme, H. G.
ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Summers, C. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Scott, R. Donald
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. p. L. (Hereford)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wellwood, W.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Snadden, W McN.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Soames, Capt. C.
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wood, Hon. R.


Speir, R. M.
Turner, H. F. L.
York, C.


Spans, Sir Patriok (Kensington, S.)
Turton, R. H.



Stevens, G. P.
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vosper, D. F.



Question put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "Cricket," to insert "and boxing."
We contend that the Entertainments Duty has had the most disastrous effect on professional boxing and if it proceeds it will lead to its virtual extinction. This disastrous effect is proved in many ways. There has been a vast decrease in the number of professional tournaments held all over the country. Promoters find it almost impossible to make a profit, but —and I am sure that I shall carry the Committee with me on this point—they find it very easy to make a loss, and therefore it is not worth the risk.
The serious aspect of this lies in the small promotions, because the small promotions are the nursery of the boxing profession. It is here that future champions are born and made. If these are closed it will mean the end of championship boxing in this country. I should like to give a few examples.
Monday nights have always been the popular nights throughout the boxing season on which to hold promotions and as a general rule in the past it has been the custom to hold 10 or 12 such promotions, but on Monday, 12th April, 1953, there was only one tournament in the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My second example is that during the six months ending 31st March, 1953, there was an overall decrease of 48 per cent. in the number of commercial promotions compared with the same period a year previously. My third example is that in January, February and March this year there have been decreases of 42, 47 and 56 per cent. compared with

those months last year. This very serious decrease will continue.
9.0 p.m.
The most serious factor is that the large tournaments comprise about 8 per cent. of the total number of promotions, the small promotions therefore comprising roughly 92 per cent. and thus it is the small tournaments which are being killed. By doing that we are also killing the backbone of British boxing because it is in the small tournament that is discovered the talent which will ultimately produce the champions to fill the bills in the larger tournaments. The trouble is that we shall end up by killing the large promoters as well.
Mr. Jack Solomons, who has done so much for British boxing, cancelled his April tournament because, with Entertainments Duty so high and with shortage of talent, he could not afford to risk anything less than "house full" signs at Harringay. This is what he said:
Even if I sold every one of the 10,000 odd tickets, I would only just pay my way and if I had a few empty seats I would lose money. That means I would get a punch on the nose for nothing.
The gross taking at a recent Midlands promotion amounted to £7,000. After all expenses and taxes had been paid, the promoter was left with a profit of £200. He had an attractive bill, and he had good weather, which he was very lucky to have.
I want now to take the point of view of the boxers themselves. I want to take the point of view of a young man of talent who has the making of a champion, and to indicate the impossible task with which he will be faced in the future


if the tournaments continue to decrease. The young man's time is limited, he has to get his experience while he is young, and he can only become a champion the hard way, and that is by fighting. Don Cockell is reported to have said the other night after he had beaten Johnny Williams:
No boxer can train for 12 months. What I need is more fights. When I am rested I am aiming at one a month. A champion is cooked by lack of serious bouts.
How right he was. Even the hard muscles of Jack Dempsey softened through lack of serious fighting.
I wonder if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or anyone else in his Department has any idea how often a young man should fight on his way up the ladder to the championship class. I should like to illustrate that by examples from history. Take Jimmy Wilde. The year that he started fighting was 1913, and in that year he had 29 fights. Three years later, in 1916, he won the world flyweight title, and he had 15 fights. In the year that Kid Lewis won the championship—1917—he had 28 fights. Take Sugar Ray Robinson. In 1941 he had 20 fights.
How about Georges Carpentier, who was light-heavyweight champion of the world in 1920? My word, he was rough to our heavyweights. He knocked out Billy Wells in the first round, and Joe Beckett twice in the first round, and the last fight took only 23 seconds. The point is that on the way up as a welterweight, in 1911, Carpentier had 20 fights.
My last example is Jack Dempsey. Again on the way up the ladder, in the year 1918, before he won the heavyweight championship of the world, he had 22 fights. Seventeen of them were knockouts and 12 of them were in the first round. There is practice for you, Sir Charles. That is the way to get your eye in. Knock 'em bow legged in the first round and bring home the bacon.
That brings me to my point. How many fights can a young man of talent have today? I have indicated that in the past these champions had on the average 20 fights a year. Today, I am informed by my colleagues on the British Boxing Board of Control, a coming champion would be lucky if he had six fights a year.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Hooray.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: What chance have we in the future under these conditions? How can we find future champions?
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for the trouble he has taken with the British Boxing Board of Control in seeing them these last two years. They have much appreciated his giving them half an hour of his time on each occasion and his kind words and sympathy. But what we want this year, if we can have it, is some gesture so that we can have hope for the future. They wish that my right hon. Friend could knock down the tax, possibly this year, to 20 per cent. I implore the Chancellor to remove the tax, if not this year, next year. If he does not remove it, he will kill what is left of British boxing stone dead.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), and I do so in the belief that a large section of the people of this country are interested in and anxious that the sport of boxing should continue. I do not think that the manner in which some of the arguments that were put forward by the hon. and gallant Member were received would be the manner in which they would be received by the large majority of the people of our country. It is important that we should consider this Amendment in its full and proper light vis-à-vis a sport which is enjoyed by so many millions of our people.
I wish in the first place to indicate that I have, in a sense, an interest in this matter in that I have acted professionally for a certain number of people in the boxing world, but I am also interested in a personal sense because I have followed this sport for a considerable number of years. I am satisfied that if it is to continue, and that is the vital question—and it is for the Chancellor to answer the question whether he wishes it to continue —then the Amendment should be carried, because without the carrying of this Amendment or something similar to it the sport itself is bound to go out of existence in this country.
I am not concerned at the moment in arguing the merits or demerits of boxing as a sport. I am satisfied that there are, like myself, a large number of people who are interested in the sport and enjoy it, who think that it is an honourable sport and one which has distinguished this country, and in which this country has been distinguished by its boxers for many years. There may be people who hold a different view; that is a matter for them, and naturally they will vote against anything in the interests of this sport. As I say, it is not now my purpose to argue with them; if there is any argument adduced against the sport I am sure that there are plenty of Members here to answer effectively.
Here is what I am concerned about. I take it for granted that the Chancellor does not wish to destroy this sport. In those circumstances I would refer him to the arguments which he has used in respect of cricket and to the answers which he has given in relation to the arguments put forward in respect of the other sports that have been referred to in the course of our debates here. I do not accept his arguments in respect of those games. I am bound to say that I should have preferred him to have given way on the last Amendment in relation to football. Be that as it may, as the Chancellor chooses to use certain arguments, I wish to ask him how he can logically deny what we are asking in this Amendment in view of the fact that he has laid down, in particular, two points on which he has based his replies to pleas for a reduction or the removal of tax in respect of other sports.
His first argument was that in respect of football, for example, he could not deal with it in the way he was asked to do because it would mean removing a very large source of revenue. The Chancellor cannot say that about boxing because in the last six months, with the double taxation, he was able to obtain only £60,000, and in the next season, if this tax continues, he will obtain no more. I do not mean no more than another £60,000. I mean in the aggregate very little more than £60,000 for a year. Therefore, we are not dealing with a matter of vital importance to the question of taxation in the country.
9.15 p.m.
I am sure that the Minister appreciates that for the purpose of this case I ask him to accept his theory that the Treasury must not be interfered with too much. As he has agreed quite rightly to accept a reduction of £80,000 tax in respect of cricket, he could accept a reduction of £60,000 tax on boxing. He cannot use the argument that that will materially affect the position, even if he assumes that another £20,000, say, might be obtained during the rest of the year.
His second point was that he was interested that a sport should not disappear because of taxation. Not only did he say that on this occasion this year but he used the argument last year. He said that he would keep his eye on the position during the period in which the tax was imposed and that if he was satisfied that the imposition of the tax would kill the sport in question, or almost kill it, he would reconsider the matter.
My contention is that this duty is rapidly killing the sport and ultimately, if the charge is not removed or substantially reduced, there will be no boxing except for a few amateur events which will far from attract the whole of the public interested in boxing. Most people interested in amateur boxing are also interested in the major professional boxing which takes place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that they are. If hon. Members go to some of the professional boxing tournaments they will see that a large number of people who go to amateur contests are there and as keenly interested in the professional sport as they are in the amateur sport.
Why do I say that the duty will kill boxing? I will give a few illustrations. A number of promoters were asked for their experience. As the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford said, the small promoters have suffered considerably and about 50 per cent. of the promoters have closed down already.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman may feel that that is a good thing, but from my point of view and from the Chancellor's point of view it is bad. From the point of view of many other hon. Members it is bad.

Mr. Hughes: How many?

Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman will see when we come to vote on the Amendment. I should like to quote a statement made by one of the promoters from Birmingham. He says:
I promoted at Redditch, Worcestershire, from 14th December, 1951, to 7th March, 1952. The capacity of the hall was 995. I never showed more than £25 profit and had I opened out in October, 1952, with the present rate of tax it would have been absolutely impossible to pay expenses. The rent was £15 per show; the hire of the chairs £20 per show, the boxers £110 to £120. The new tax would have taken another extra £23 to £28. My Nuneaton venture which I commenced on 12th September, 1952, was promising, small hall capacity, 825 people for a full house, showed £35 profit after paying £42 tax. My second show on 6th and 7th October, with tax applying, on which I paid £45 in tax for a 75 per cent. house, resulting in a loss of £7. Making allowances for fog, rain, etc., a 75 per cent. house when you are promoting regular fortnightly shows is quite satisfactory to make a profit in ordinary circumstances. but not with this extra burden of the entertainment tax. Incidentally, I was making this my means of livelihood, owing to two serious operations, but I have now had to take a job that does show me a living wage, and will continue to do so until this heavy burden is removed. There are 80 boys around here who would have been kept busy in the boxing world at my shows.
He finishes up by saying that there are now only 24 instead of 72 of these boys engaged. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] While it may be cause for congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), it is not a cause of congratulation to those who are engaged in the sport of boxing.
Let me give one other illustration. This comes from Cambridgeshire:
We were only a small promotion, catering for approximately 1,200 people. Previous to the increase, we were able to continue promotions with a small profit. When the increased tax came into operation, we immediately began to show serious losses, which gradually increased as the season wore on, so that it is making it impossible for us to carry on. In five tournaments, the average approximate loss was £42 per tournament, and we considered it better to keep our money in our pockets than to work and fill the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the expense of emptying our own.
Those are two illustrations of cases which are representative of the experience of 50 per cent. of those promoters who have closed down already. It is anticipated that, if this duty continues— and I am quite serious about this, because the Minister has the figures before him and I do not think he can deny them—the

sport will be killed, and I therefore hope that the Chancellor will do something in the matter. The present position is that already at this stage in May, when the British Boxing Board of Control has usually received a large number of applications for permission to use certain halls for the further season, which applications are considered by them in June, the Southern Area Council, for example, has not received a single application.
That is the position of this very important sport at the present time, and I say to the Chancellor that he must consider whether he is going to continue this duty as it is at present, or whether, before the Report stage, he will reduce it to a considerable extent. If he leaves it as it is at present, he will deal almost a death blow to this sport. If he really wants to do that, then he is going the right way about it, but, if not, I appeal to him as a lover of this sport himself—as I believe he is—to see that something is done and done rapidly to remedy the position. There is no time to lose because otherwise the arrangements for the coming season will be entirely destroyed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all the other people who are seriously considering this sport will look at it from the point of view I have put forward, and will do everything they can to encourage the Chancellor to change his mind in regard to this tax and to do what he said he would do concerning the removal of this tax from any sport where he thought this was necessary for its continuance.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: All that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) have said bears out what is put forward by a former boxing promoter in my own constituency who happens to live in the town of Charteris, a town not unknown in the boxing world, and the home town of Eric Boon. It provides very good sport for amateur boxing up and down the country.
Having delivered a rather ineffective blow to the Government from the-orchestra pit last night, I hope that tonight I might be considered to be leading with my right when I ask the Financial Secretary to look once again at the


point I put to him in a letter which embodied many of the points made by this particular promoter. I substantiate what was said by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. I understand that of 109 boxing promoters in the country, 43 have now ceased business altogether. It might interest the Committee to know why this particular boxing promoter decided to stop promoting fights. He promotes boxing tournaments in Cambridge, and the figures which he has given me have been certified by the city treasurer and can, therefore, I think, be taken as accurate.
Before the increase in the Entertainments Duty introduced in last year's Budget, the profits for three contests in February, March and April, 1952, were £57 19s., £39 11s. and £38 19s. respectively. After the increase was imposed they tried to keep admission prices at the same level as they were before. They found, however, that that was impossible, and they had to increase their prices. Despite that, their meetings in October and December resulted in losses of £1 12s., £21 10s. and £13 14s.
In March, my constituent wrote to tell me that he had had to close down his business and had consequently had to cancel the programme for the rest of the year. As my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West pointed out, if this state of affairs continues, not only will boxing suffer very seriously, but the Chancellor will not get the revenue he expected to get. I think that both those facts ought to make the Government change their mind about this.
9.30 p.m.
I strongly endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend said, that the more fighting a boxer does, within reasonable limits, the more likely he is to be successful. Judging by her intervention the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) would not, perhaps, agree with that. It is clear that if we want our boxers to do well against boxers from other countries we must give them the opportunity of getting tuned up so that they can meet them on equal terms. When we compare our own boxers, particularly men like Bruce Woodcock, with boxers from other countries, we sometimes get the feeling

that the condition of the men with whom they are matched is far better than their own. I believe that that is largely due to the fact that they do not fight often enough.
We sometimes make the mistake, and not only in the boxing world, of not giving our men enough contests for them to be successful. I believe that we have now come to a stage in boxing where, whatever the amateurs do, and they will always produce fine boxers, they will never make up for the loss we shall suffer in British boxing if the "professional nursery," as it has been described in this debate, is not kept going. That is the real danger, and I implore the Government to think again about this taxation.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Almost every professional boxer in this country has come from the amateur ranks. On that there can be no dispute whatever, and if we destroy professional boxing it will obviously bring almost to an end the amateur side of the sport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reason that I have just given. [An HON. MEMBER: "The other way round."] I require no assistance either from my hon. Friends or anybody else in the Committee. I have entered the ring quite voluntarily and I am not likely to be counted out.
It is remarkable, indeed it is almost incredible, that hon. Members in various quarters of the Committee only regard a sport as being in reality a sport if it happens to fit in with their particular notions. It is a sport if one happens to have a football club in one's constituency. If there is no football club, either soccer or Rugby League or whatever it may be in one's constituency, either at the top or at the bottom of the league, then some hon. Members are unconcerned about the sport, and not much concerned about the subject of taxation.
We have had a great deal of talk in the course of previous debates about which is the oldest sport in the country. That sport—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not taxed."]—some have claimed, is not cricket. Arguments have been adduced in support of Soccer which, it was claimed, was played in Scotland more than seven centuries ago. In fact, the oldest sport of all is combat between two individuals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] This derives


not from a period so recent as seven centuries ago, but is almost lost in the mists of antiquity.
By way of digression, I should like to indicate that some of the most pugnacious Members of the Committee on either side —perhaps I had better not indicate the actual geographical position at this stage —have momentarily and suddenly, for the purpose of this debate, developed pacific notions. A further digression, if I may indulge in one, is that in this House we have supported defence measures almost unanimously—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is excluded from all these considerations—amounting to almost £1,600 million annually. The Committee is well aware of what expenditure has been incurred for defence; but for the purposes of the noble art of self-defence hon. Members are not prepared to spare a single farthing.
What is the argument against the continuance of this sport? I expect that hon. Members will agree that the amateur side of the sport should be continued and, indeed, encouraged. We have it in the schools; it is encouraged there. We have it in the Services; it is encouraged there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not by the right hon. Member for Fulham, West."] I will come to the right hon. Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) before I have finished. I think we can beat her on points.
If I can carry hon. Members so far, that they are prepared to help in the encouragement of the amateur side of the sport, then, clearly, they have to consider what I said when I began—namely, that there is a close association, much closer than some hon. Members imagine, between the amateur side of the sport and the professional side. Of course, anybody who has any knowledge of this matter is well aware of that.
There are some hon. Members who have not much knowledge of the subject, although I am bound to say that whenever a big fight is coming along they are very anxious to procure tickets to attend it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. Some of you have asked for it, and you will get it. After all, we must not be afraid of saying what we know to be true, even if it is discouraging for some of my

hon. Friends. By the way, this is no split in the Labour Party. This is merely a difference of opinion about whether a particular sport should be encouraged.
Something has been said about the brutality of this sport. I do not suppose there is a single Member of the Committee—and I confine myself to the male Members—who has not at some time or other, at school, after leaving school, in adolescence, in manhood, early and middle aged, and even in late manhood, indulged in an altercation with someone as a result of which one or other has been the recipient of, shall I say, a black eye. That is not something which is unusual in this country; it is something which is characteristic. This is a democratic country, and hon. Members who speak and write about the brutal side of this sport—as some have done—show a complete misunderstanding of the position and, indeed, an extravagance of language.
I should have thought that hon. Members, generally speaking—I had better say "generally speaking"—are not without some pride when a professional boxer from the United Kingdom is able to display his prowess against a combatant from some other country. I suggest that hon. Members, generally speaking, were proud of the fact that Randolph Turpin was able to beat Sugar Ray Robinson. Why? He was engaged in an allegedly brutal sport. He was engaged in the professional side of the sport, which some hon. Members wish to discourage. Yet they take pride in the fact that a professional boxer of some talent and quality was able to stand up to an opponent of the calibre of Sugar Ray Robinson.
I suppose that many hon. Members have attended boxing contests—both amateur and professional—and, as a result of their experience, have discovered that there is not much difference—in both attack and defence—between amateur and professional contests. The scientific displays which are often evident in those boxing contests are worth encouraging.
Let us see what we are asking the Chancellor to do. I shall not repeat what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and my hon. Friend


the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). If the Chancellor is disinclined to make a concession this year it will not entirely destroy professional boxing, but it will harm professional boxing. It will make it very difficult for the small promoters to carry on, and I can see no reason why the small promoters should be at a greater disadvantage than the promoters at a higher level. There is no reason why we should support one section as against the other.
If, on the other hand, the Chancellor and other hon. Members want to destroy professional boxing entirely, let them say so. I do not believe that that is the view of the majority. While I do not suggest that to refuse a concession of any sort would destroy professional boxing, it would do considerable damage. The amount involved is infinitesimal as compared to the sums which the Chancellor seeks to raise by means of taxation, and I think a concession is called for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West said, it is estimated that the amount of money which would be obtained by continuing the tax on its present scale would be about £60,000 in a full year. It may be some thousands of pounds more, but it is certainly within the £100,000 limit. In those circumstances, it is not unfair to ask the Chancellor to consider some concession, however moderate. I remind the Chancellor that last year he raised the duty. I am not quite sure why.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I explained my reasons in full in my last speech, but I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the Chancellor. It is true that I have not been attending the whole of the debates. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman had some valid reason for raising the duty, but apparently it did not bring in a great deal of revenue, and certainly not as much as he estimated. I doubt whether his estimate will be fulfilled at the end of this financial year.
In those circumstances, since the Financial Secretary asked for some suggestion in this matter, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might make the

concession of returning to the duty level of last year. That would afford some measure of relief. I do not propose to go further into this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—unless hon. Members provoke me into doing so, and if they do, I have no objection to continuing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] I cannot understand why so many hon. Members, after devoting so much time in repetitive speeches on the subject of football duty, object to an hour being spent on discussing the taxation of boxing. It proves conclusively what I have said— that they regard sport as something which suits their own purpose. When it comes to something in which they are not interested, they regard it no longer as a sport. That is remarkable, coming from some hon. Members who regard themselves as tolerant in controversies of this kind. I am shocked at the attitude of some hon. Members.
I have no interest in this question; there are no boxing promoters in my constituency, although there is a good deal of amateur boxing. The National Coal Board conduct amateur boxing on a very large scale. Nothing encourages athletic pursuits in young men better than boxing and nothing fits them better for their daily task, because of the intensive training and discipline involved. Although I have no interest in the subject, I happen to know something about it. I have had the experience myself. I sought very hard, when I was young, to be properly attacked in one part of my anatomy because I thought it might improve my appearance.
On the other hand, in my experience, either by participation or by witnessing boxing contests, I have never found that there was anything really brutalising about it. Do not forget that only a few weeks ago Derek Dooley, a footballer in this country, in a game which is not supposed to be brutalised, had his leg broken, and, moreover, men have been killed in football matches. As for Rugby League, I have seen more brutalisation on the football field than ever I saw in the boxing ring. These comments might not suit some hon. Members, but, nevertheless, I stand up for professional and amateur boxing. I ask the Chancellor to encourage it, and to encourage it in spite of the alleged and, I say, pseudo pacifism of some hon. Members.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman but to consider the Amendment solely from the point of view of revenue, which is, of course, with what we are concerned at the moment. I want to argue that if the Chancellor can see his way to make at any rate some concession in response to the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) then it is highly likely that, far from losing revenue, he will gain revenue; certainly over a number of years he will gain revenue rather than lose it.
What is the principle of the Bill in this respect? We have rejected the principle that it is necessary to treat all sports alike. Some hon. Members wish to do that, but the Committee has decided that that shall not be the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill is that we shall make special concessions to sports on two grounds; on the one ground if the amount of money involved is not large, and on the other ground if the sport is threatened with being driven out of existence if a concession cannot be made. As the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and other hon. Members have shown, on those two grounds boxing very well qualifies for a concession.
What has been the result of raising the duty? The result of raising the duty in general has been admittedly that there was a gain made over the last 12 months, rising from £48,000 to £61,000 total revenue. On the other hand, if we look at the revenue coming in from small tournaments we find that, in spite of the increased duty, the total revenue has fallen from £23,000 to £20,000 because, of course, the number of small tournaments has decreased. As my hon. and gallant Friend has shown—and I need not take the Committee through the argument again—during a temporary condition in which large tournaments can go on while small tournaments are being driven out of existence, for a year or two the Chancellor makes more money out of the large tournaments, but in a few years the small tournaments and the large will go out of existence, so that the Chancellor will lose money. So I hope he will listen to the plea which my hon. and gallant Friend and others have made to him.

Dr. Summerskill: If I am to judge by the roars from the Government benches, I shall have to face the Government benches singlehanded tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said the Government benches, but, indeed, judging from a certain contribution to the debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) I may have to expect a few punches on my flank, too. However, I am undeterred. I do not come to this Box as a weak and feeble woman who is horrified at the sight of men punching each other. Furthermore, I do not come to this Box as somebody who is untrained in looking upon blood and injury. Therefore, I hope nobody will think that my approach to this subject is an emotional one. My approach is based on rational grounds.
First of all, I must disagree with those who contend that professional boxing, which is virtually prize fighting, is a sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West emphasised the whole time that the Chancellor must be kind to this important sport. Let us examine that contention. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), who moved the Amendment, dealt solely with the profits of the promoters. Not for one moment did he mention sportsmanship. Not for one moment did he think apparently in terms of the high standards of British sport.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: No, I listened to the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps he will be kind enough to listen to me.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Let me answer that. The right hon. Lady is making accusations.

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that my speech will be factual. I shall not misrepresent him.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: The right hon. Lady is doing so already.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Member quoted the profits which certain promoters earned and appealed to the Chancellor on the ground that those profits were diminishing. That in itself proves that we are not discussing a sport: we are discussing a business.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: There will be plenty of time for the hon. Member to make his contribution.
I did interject once in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech to say "Hooray" when he told me that the participants in the ring now had to fight only six times a year, that they now had to suffer some injury only six times a year instead of 30 times a year as they did in his youth. The sole object of the promoters is to make money out of this entertainment. [Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but hon. Gentlemen opposite know that what I am saying is perfectly true. The promoters are concerned only with profit. After the speech of the hon. and gallant Member I scarcely need to speak, because he failed to deal with any sporting aspect. He used some extraordinary expressions about fighters, and said that the right thing to do was to get in quickly and to knock the opponent bow-legged, I think he said. Here we have the truth, I will not say from babes and sucklings, but at any rate we realise the hon. and gallant Gentleman's approach. We know—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Who is "we"?

Dr. Snmmerskill: I speak for myself only on this. We have no party policy on the subject.
It is a fact, as the hon. and and gallant Gentleman implied, that the object of each active participant in the ring is to render his opponent insensible in the shortest possible time.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Hear, hear.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees, and I am glad the Chancellor is here, because it might help him not to change his mind about this. This is supposed to be a sport. The promoter makes the money and the whole object of the fighter is to render his opponent unconscious by the right kind of blow directed to the point of the jaw. Is that so?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees, but I believe he wonders why. I will tell him why. I did not have the training in the ring he may have had, but I do know that the blow is directed to the point of the jaw because the injury to the brain is greater than if. it is directed to any other point of the skull. The chances of rendering an individual unconscious are much greater if the blow is delivered at that vulnerable point. The object of the participant is to render his opponent unconscious, for which he will receive a monetary award. And they call this a sport.
For my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to compare boxing with Rugby is nonsense, and for this reason. In Rugby the motive is not to render the opponent unconscious. [Interruption.] I am willing to agree that occasionally players are rendered unconscious, but that is not the primary motive. Incidentally, if a man succeeds in doing that at Rugby, he does not get a monetary reward. The difference is that in boxing the individual who is successful is rewarded financially.
The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford and, I am very sorry to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, went into the business details. The business side—and here again I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will laugh at this, but it is a fact—is conducted in a kind of boxing underworld with which most hon. Members would be ashamed to be associated. I ask the Chancellor: Does all this accord with British sportsmanship? While I have profound sympathy with the relatives of the boys who are killed in the ring and with those poor creatures whose brains are permanently damaged in consequence of repeated blows to the skull, I am even more concerned with the effect on the audience.
10.0 p.m.
The commentators of the B.B.C. and, unfortunately, television are bringing this sordid entertainment right into the living homes of the people. The commentaries on these fights and the pictures in the newspapers illustrate my point. When a commentator finds it necessary to describe in detail the amount of blood which has been drawn and the ferocity


and accuracy of the blows to the heart and the brain, it is clear that the object is to appeal to the sadistic impulses. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington that the sadistic impulses are the lowest and crudest passions in man. The primitive yells of the crowd— and I am rather reminded of them tonight—who watch these exhibitions are evidence of what I say. What I want to emphasise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I believe that tonight all decent-minded men here are with me—

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Nonsense.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I ought not to take any exception to being called sadistic, perhaps I ought not to take any exception to being told that I ought to be ashamed of myself and the company I keep, but I do take exception to being told that I am excluded from the category of decent men.

Dr. Summerskill: I had no idea that my right hon. Friend was so sensitive.
I want to emphasise the point tonight —and I think that I am creating a precedent because I do not believe that in the history of the House any individual has appeared at this Dispatch Box making this particular plea—that this is not a sport which tends to develop the highest qualities in man, but a sordid entertainment which degrades both the active participants and the audience. For this reason I ask the Chancellor not to reduce the tax but to discriminate against prize fighting just as he has discriminated in favour of that fine sport cricket, but with this difference—I should like him to increase the tax on boxing and if he cannot do so this year, seriously to consider increasing it next year.
It is quite clear, as we have heard tonight, that the promoters of this low form of entertainment are becoming a little apprehensive. Pressure groups have been formed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about an "obscene" pressure group. Perhaps I might use the same expression. Nothing could be more obscene than to form a pressure group outside the House to press for this kind of crude and debasing entertainment. These people are getting apprehensive because their profits are decreasing and because they see the improved education of the masses.
It is possible for a high-minded Chancellor to exercise a very considerable power in society by taxing out of existence certain institutions and entertainments which offend against public morality and are harmful physically and mentally. I ask him to use his power by retaining this tax and giving serious thought to increasing it considerably next year.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have no intention at all of attacking the speech just made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ful-ham, West (Dr. Summerskill), because she just does not understand the subject at all. I do not know exactly what her son thinks about it, but I believe that he is concerned about boxing in the university to which he is attached.

Dr. Summerskill: My son has never been in a boxing ring in the university.

Mrs. Braddock: I did not say that; I said I wondered what he thought about it.
I do not intend to follow my right hon. Friend. I want to speak for the boxers themselves. I happen to be the Honorary Vice-President of the Professional Boxers' Association and I have been nominated as its next Honorary President. It is a trade union. There are in the country about 3,500 professional boxers, and about 80 per cent. of them, including Randolph Turpin and others who have played a very big part in boxing recently, belong to the organisation. It has been able, as trade unions usually are, to make suggestions to the British Boxing Board of Control for improving this very ancient sport. The sport needed improving and it still needs improving.
Not one of the 3,500 professional boxers has been dragged into the ring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Out."] Some of them may be dragged out again, but they accept the sport and join in it voluntarily. It is a very good thing that everybody is not forced to follow a certain sport or a certain craft that somebody else wants them to. When I have the choice between listening to the weird and wonderful noises which come from symphony orchestras and attending a boxing tournament, my choice is always the boxing tournament. It is quite possible that my right hon. Friend would rather have


the peculiar, weird noises that come from the symphony concerts. It is a good job that we have different points of view. That is how we remain a democratic country, because we have been able to express our opinions and to take part in, or watch, whichever sport we choose.
Boxers are very concerned about the number of provincial boxing tournaments or promotions that have been stopped because of the effect of the increase in tax. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West wants boxing taxed out of existence, we are talking on different terms altogether. If that was the position, it would be a question of discussing the rights or wrongs of boxing— but we are not doing that. Boxing is accepted by a very large proportion of the public as a sport, and they like to see it. They like to see the contests and the skill that is attached to it.
Boxing starts in the school. I am one of those who believe that if in every small area, and attached to every school, there was a gymnasium where young children could be taught decently to defend themselves, to become sportsmen, we would have far less of the juvenile delinquency that we have at present. Young boys can be trained, and they all want to become boxers. Whenever a boxing gymnasium is put up in a school, there are always very many more who wish to use it than are able to take advantage of it.
When young boys are taught to have the sportsmanlike outlook and to be able to control their feelings—because they have to do that as a discipline—it is very much better than the sort of thing that we get with juvenile delinquency— bringing the young people into the courts to be dealt with. Starting from that point of view, they enter the amateur ranks. They have a pride in being able scientifically to beat the other man at boxing.
If sport and boxing is to stop at the amateur stage, why not say so? The game could then adjust itself to the question of how it will fit in amateur sport. But that is not what the Chancellor is saying. He does not say that he wants to dispense with boxing altogether. If he were to say that, remember that this Bill goes to another place. We all know that the great call when a boxing booth

opens is usually, "My Lords, ladies and gentlemen." If the Chancellor says that he wants to dispense with boxing altogether, "My Lords" might have something to say about it when the Bill reaches another place. But I do not believe that the Chancellor wants to do that. He told me in the last Budget debate that he would watch the position very carefully.
A few weeks ago I asked the Chancellor two Questions. I asked whether he knew of the difficulties of a boxing promotion in my constituency, where I have perhaps one of the best known provincial boxing promoters in the country —Johnny Best, who is known to have given opportunities to boys who might not have had them from anyone else. Through the Liverpool Stadium promotions have come Ernie Roderick. Nel Tarleton, Peter Kane and very many of those who have reached the big promotions in the London, Newcastle or South Wales areas. Liverpool Stadium, which is in my constituency, puts on a boxing show every Thursday night. It was one of the places whose spirit kept the morale of the people of Liverpool very high-during the bombing and the years of the war. Irrespective of what the position was, a boxing promotion went on every Thursday night during those very difficult years.
10.15 p.m.
When the new tax was imposed I asked the Chancellor whether he was aware of certain figures which I quoted in a Question. He gave a silly answer about Purchase Tax having been taken off equipment. That did not meet the case at all. The position is that on 28 promotions in the Liverpool Stadium since the new tax came into operation the Stadium has incurred a loss of £2,804. Nobody will continuously run any sport at a loss.
If a boxing promotion is to be accepted as a sport according to the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control certain regulations have to be complied with. The promoter must be licensed, every one of his boxers must be licensed and a decent bill must be prepared or people will not attend the promotion. No promoter, no private enterprise person, will run a business at such a loss as I have mentioned.
The places where these events take place, whether the promotions be large


or small, pay rates to the local authority, and Liverpool Stadium is no exception. We are in danger, in Liverpool, of losing these promotions altogether. I know that I am speaking for my constituents and for lovers of boxing in Liverpool when I say that they will be very savage with the Chancellor if their weekly stadium promotion on Thursday night is closed down because taxation has made it impossible for boxing shows to be promoted.
I also asked the Chancellor whether he would be prepared to reproduce in HANSARD the admirable case and figures which were submitted to him when a deputation from the British Boxing Board of Control waited upon him. A large number of figures were given and an excellent report was prepared. I have that report; I do not want to weary the Committee with it, but I should like to recapitulate the position. Before I do that, I would say the figures show that since the new tax there has been a bigger aggregate amount paid in Entertainments Duty, but that has been only through the big promotions.
Unless the provincial promotions are able to continue the big promotions will also cease altogether, because it is through the eliminating contests and through the provincial contests that the big bills and the championship fights are arranged at the bigger promotions. Therefore, while the amount is bigger at the moment, the Chancellor is in danger, through the number of provincial boxing promotions either closing down or going over to charity shows on which no Entertainments Duty is paid, of losing the biggest part of his Entertainments Duty revenue from boxing.
Let me give the aggregate figures for the six months from October, 1952, to March, 1953. The figures for the tournaments where takings exceeded £2,500 was £191,926 in 1951. For the same period in 1952 the figure was £189,838—a reduction in the takings of the large promoters. The Entertainments Duty paid in this period was £25,080 in 1951 and it was £40,630 in 1952. A higher amount was paid from a lower income. For the promotions in smaller premises where takings were under £2,500, for the same period the figure was £180,728 in 1951 and £106,312 in 1952. There was a big reduction in takings. The Entertainments Duty was £23,057 in 1951 and £19,675 in

1952. That showed a decrease. In March, 1953, there was a reduction of 56 per cent. in the number of promotions as compared with the previous year. The Chancellor said last year that he would watch figures carefully and that if he discovered that there was a difficulty he would reconsider the matter.
The British Boxing Board of Control and the promoters do not want the duty to be removed completely, as the football promoters do. They say that in view of the figures which they have produced to the Chancellor and the fact that they will continue to drop, they would appreciate it if the amount of duty could go back to the figure before the increase. I put that point to the Chancellor. If he intends that professional boxing promotions shall continue, if he is concerned about the 3,500 boxers who are registered and hold licences and who voluntarily want to continue the sport, will he consider reducing the duty to the original level?
Boxing is not only national: it is international. One of the things we need today is something to promote decent international relationship. Sport is an activity which promotes good international relationship. I should like to paraphrase one of the present-day writers of gangster stories, Earle Stanley Gardiner. Sometimes one discovers in people who write this type of book more words of wisdom than we hear in Parliaments. He says that before very long ordinary people will be able to be transported very quickly by air for many thousands of miles. He says that Governments do not make friendships, but that people individually do.
One of the best ways in which to promote decent individual international relationships, which might have a very big effect upon the general feelings of people throughout the world, is to keep those sports which people of different standards and different ways of life enjoy as free from taxation as possible. We should not tax them out of existence, but should give to those who desire to watch these sports and to those who desire to take part in them the opportunity of putting into operation those personal desires of which they think most.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I rather hesitate to intervene, or indeed intrude, in this extremely enjoyable debate, in which we


have had a most remarkable mixture of contributions from the other side of the Committee. I certainly do not propose to follow the example of either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) or the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) by giving at considerable length my views on the merits of this sport, but if I were tempted to do so I should find myself much more in Easington Street than in the Fulham Road.
We are concerned with the question raised so clearly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) in moving the Amendment, when I thought he fully lived up to his own direction to "knock 'em bow-legged in the first round." The Amendment would have the effect of giving to professional boxing the freedom from duty which will in any event, under the proposals of my right hon. Friend, be given to amateur boxing. The fact that my right hon. Friend is freeing amateur boxing, as other amateur forms of sport, I think confirms that.
I have personally the highest regard for this most admirable sport, and would not like to seem to accept some of the suggestions which have been made against it. The practical and much more limited issue is whether a case has been made for giving to the professional side of this sport a complete exemption from Entertainments Duty. There are various aspects of this which I do not think I need recapitulate, because we have been discussing Entertainments Duty on sport for some considerable time in the last couple of days. I suggest to the Committee that no case has been made, particularly, perhaps, in view of the decision of the Committee on the previous Amendment, for exempting entirely from Entertainments Duty the professional side of this sport.

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. Gentleman has not been asked for that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Amendment does ask for it and it is this Amendment to which I must address myself. Other people have made other requests at other times, but the hon. Lady must allow me to deal with the Amendment before the Committee, and that is what it proposes.
To take the extreme case, it proposes, in the case of a big championship, that a 10-guinea ring-side seat should be completely tax-free. In view of the decision of the Committee, which has been taken on previous Amendments in respect of other forms of sport, I do not think it is really reasonable to suggest that in cases like that the Entertainments Duty should be wholly waived. For that reason, if for no other, it would be necessary to suggest to the Committee that they should reject the Amendment, but in deference to some of the arguments used I should like to say a little more about it.
There is a certain revenue interest in this matter—actually, a rather larger one than the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) seemed to think. The amount of revenue at issue is somewhere between £100,000 and £150,000 and, although it is not a vast figure, it is appreciably larger than the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West suggested.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he bases that figure? Is it true that in the six months of the last season the amount was £60,000; and if that is so, how does he calculate he is likely to get a further £40,000?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a calculation made by people with great knowledge not only of the past but of the prospective future of this sport, and I give it to the Committee as the best possible estimate that can be given. However, I do not base the case entirely on the revenue aspect. I merely mention it because in discussing these things the Committee want to know what the cost to the Exchequer would be.
The real point on which hon. Members have shown considerable and very understandable concern is the condition of the sport, and I say that even in the presence of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West. I do not think that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West was using reasonable language when he referred to the likelihood of the sport becoming extinct. In point of fact, so far as the larger promotions are concerned, although it is perfectly accurate to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend did, that the number of promotions has declined since the increase of duty, actually the total of takings has hardly


varied at all. The variation is only 1 per cent. Therefore, it is very misleading to base one's argument on the number of promotions without taking into account the size of them and the attendances which they have commanded.
As to the smaller promotions, there has been some reduction, as the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) quite fairly said, and I would not say that those concerned in this sport are altogether wrong in entertaining apprehensions about it. I would however, remind the Committee of a point which has already been made on a previous Amendment, that it really is quite unsound to argue that because attendance at a particular sport has declined that must be due to the level of a tax, and that the remedial process is the elimination of that tax. As I pointed out to the Committee on the previous Amendment, in the case of sports which have gained reductions in duty through my right hon. Friend's proposals, attendances have also declined, and therefore it is oversimplification of the problem to suggest that, because attendances may have declined, it is necessary to reduce the duty.
I have had the privilege of meeting the British Boxing Board of Control and discussing these matters with them and with one or two hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are interested in this matter, and I can assure the Committee that it is certainly not the intention of my right hon. Friend to destroy the sport. If I hesitate to use exactly the same language as that used on the previous Amendment lest it calls for some Wykehamical censure on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend certainly entertains none of the hostility to this sport which appears to exist in other quarters of the Committee.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, both from what I have said and what my right hon. Friend has done in the specific fields of these proposals, including in particular the very welcome easement on amateur boxing, which is part and parcel of these proposals, that we are certainly anxious to watch carefully the progress of this sport, and that, while we do not accept the exceedingly

gloomy prognostications that have been offered in this debate and outside, we do appreciate the anxiety of those concerned and we would certainly not wish to do this sport any injury.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are these pugnacious hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee not going to fight the Government?

Mr. Julian Snow: Are none of us from this side of the Committee who have put our names to the Amendment to be allowed to say anything?

The Chairman: I called the hon. Member.

Mr. Snow: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but with the noise that is going on I did not hear you.
I wish to make two points to the Chancellor. I do not think he was here when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) was making her speech, but if he and the Financial Secretary are not impressed with the arguments employed so far, would they listen to this short one relating to that speech which, in my view, was entirely undesirable for two reasons?
The first point is that I think the right hon. Lady used a certain amount of medical evidence, every bit of which could have been applied to other sports, including Rugby. Secondly, and this is a point I feel very strongly about, I think we all feel proud of the history of sport in this country and its general effect on manners. The speech of the right hon. Lady was a perfect piece of evidence of the rather sinister influence in our life at the present time which appears to idealise effeminacy in men and masculinity in women.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: There was one point in the speech of the Financial Secretary to which I think we may attach importance; that is where he said that for the moment he asked the Committee to negative this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that last year the hon. Member


for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and other hon. Members raised the whole question of amateur sport. The matter was considered, and considered very sympathetically, by the Chancellor during that time. I think there are many of us who have reason to believe, or at any rate to hope, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, during the coming year, give special attention to the sport of boxing.
I speak with a certain amount of experience, which I share with the hon. Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), in saying "No" to the two issues which the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) has advanced to the Committee. She maintains, in the first place, that nothing can be sport if it is professional. I would like her to take that view to Stamford Bridge and see whether anyone there would say that there is a debasing of the sport for that reason. She said that it cannot be sport, because it is not sport to do that sort of thing, or to take that sort of risk. I think the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) was right when she said the right hon. Lady really did not know what she was talking about. One has to go back to one's youth to realise that the desire to "have ago" and take a risk is something fundamental to the development of youth. A man does not, in fact, go into the ring to be hauled out or to have someone else hauled out. He goes in to take part in a sport.
I hope that the Committee will agree with the Financial Secretary and give him time to think this over and arrange it, as he did in the previous 12 months for the question of amateur sport. There cannot be many of these professional sports. Curling, water polo and those things do not have a substantial professional section, if any. I can think only of lawn tennis, real tennis, squash racquets and I think the Committee can assure the Financial Secretary that in all these cases the professional element has a tremendously important part to play in raising the standard and increasing the enjoyment and benefit of the sport for everyone else. I hope that we may now withdraw this Amendment and not divide.

Mr. Wigg: I think the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) was unfair when he used the language he did to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] I deplore the language that he used to my right hon. Friend, although it may well be that she overstated the case. I think that under certain conditions boxing is a manly decent sport, and I am very glad indeed that the Chancellor has used one Clause of the Bill to give amateur boxing a new lease of life. I also think that the Financial Secretary was right when he said he would not use the financial weapon to put paid to professional boxing.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) were here. For him to suggest that professional boxing is something clean and noble which can be put in the same category as cricket or football reveals that my right hon. Friend knows nothing about the game at all. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield knows little about it when he says that the same kind of injuries can be inflicted in other sports as can be inflicted in boxing.

Mr. Snow: I did not say that. I said the same medical arguments could be used against Rugby.

Mr. Wigg: Well, that is a piece of absolute nonsense.
The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) gave examples of some boxers whose names are honoured in the annals of British boxing. One of them I knew; one of the great figures of boxing. Where did he end his days? As a shuffling lump of humanity, punch drunk, unable to co-ordinate his movements, his eyes damaged, hawking luggage outside Brighton Station. In this so-called sport there was another example the other day, when Tommy Farr, a man of over 40, was put in the ring to become a chopping block in order to put money into a professional boxing promoter's pocket.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, of course we realise that sort of thing happened in the old days, but now the British


Boxing Board of Control regard it as a thing we want to stop. Why try to knock one of the finest sports in the world like that?

Mr. Wigg: It is an extraordinary thing, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered his own argument. He deplores the small number of fights young professional boxers are having in a given year, but it is the number of fights following quickly one on top of another that cause a man to become punch drunk. The safeguards which are present in amateur boxing are completely lacking in professional boxing. My experience goes back a long way before that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When I was a young soldier I used to go with one or two other chaps, one of whom became a champion, to the Ring and to other boxing arenas, on Sunday mornings. In the old days the aspiring champion could get a jolly good hiding for 10s. If he was good and the crowd liked him he would get promoted to the £2 for a win class, provided he was prepared to take a "dive" when he was told. That was how professional boxing was ran. "Taking a dive" was the common parlance of the boxing game and certainly a recognised part of the procedure. Any hon. Gentleman who claims that professional boxing is a sport is abusing the English language.
I suggest, with great respect, that the Chancellor is quite right not to use the great power placed in his hands to do more than to raise revenue or keep the wheels of industry and the economy going. He ought not to use the fiscal weapon to force moral judgments on OUT citizens for by so doing he would be using taxation to alter the social scene. As was said by the Financial Secretary, it would be wrong to believe that the incidence of taxation is the sole cause for the decline in the income of this so-called sport. The facts are the British public have become aware of what has been on, and they are not prepared to pay high prices for fights that they know are fixed. There is another factor. Owing to the fact that they can now get jobs young men are not prepared to go into the ring and just become chopping blocks when they can see for themselves what has happened to the great figures of the boxing world of bygone generations.
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West overstated her case when she attacked boxing in the very stupid way she did. At the same time, I believe that her medical evidence is absolutely sound. I challenge other hon. Members who are doctors to deny that the inevitable result to many young men if they had 10 or a dozen fights in two or three months would be an early death, or blindness or their becoming shuffling lumps of punch-drunk humanity.

rose—

10.45 p.m.

The Chairman: We have had a long debate and I was hoping that the Committee was ready to come to a decision. If not, I am in the hands of the Committee, but we have had a long debate and all points of view have been put.

Mr. J. McGovern: I shall not detain the Committee long. I could not appeal for a reduction in the taxation which is imposed upon boxing matches because I do not consider that it is doing the harm to promotions which has been stated. At the same time I agree with 90 per cent. of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) said.
Let me make a confession. I used frequently to go to boxing matches, and every time I came out I felt most uncomfortable. In the end I reasoned myself away from them because I felt I could no longer support something which was not a sport but purely massacre of the innocents. In that respect, I cannot support the plea which has been made tonight.
I have seen many victims of boxing. In Glasgow there are men who have been the victims of the boxing promoters. A large number of young men go around the boxing booths and are used as "stooges" or chopping blocks to test the ability and the ferocity of those engaged in the promotions. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the boxing ring promotes the worst instincts in the human race. Women shout "Kill him, kill him!" when a man has been driven round the ring and the blood is flowing from him.
It reminds me of the time when I was in Spain, in the bull ring. [Laughter.] Not in the bull ring, of course, but watching bull fights. A former French consul told


me that when Manoletto, the famous Spanish bull-fighter, had been gored to death, he turned in his dying moments, pointed to the bull and said, "That is not the beast" and added, "that is the beast," indicating the crowd, who were demanding the continuation of the fight and the kill.
The Chancellor would be misusing his power if he attempted to legislate the boxing promoters out of business. I wish I could see the time when the public would find the sadism abhorrent and would refuse to witness what goes on in the ring. I remember joining the Navy when I was 17, and being engaged at Chatham in a fight with a comrade. We were asked to go into the ring for eight rounds. I knocked out my opponent and sat up half the night trying to revive him. I can only say that as an individual I went frequently to boxing rings in Belfast, Australia, and in this country; but, as time went on, I reasoned with myself to the extent that this was a brutality which no human being in his right senses should encourage.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I should tell the Committee that it had been the intention of the Government to make a good deal of progress with the Purchase Tax provisions of the Bill; but I do not wish that we should sit unduly late. We have had three debates on the question of sport and, if I may say so, there has been a good deal of overlapping of argument. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made their case for boxing, and the Government have replied. We have still to obtain Clause 6, and I should like to get the next Clause, making a start then on Purchase Tax; although not engaging in discussion on the major issues, which we will leave until after the holiday. If we are to rise at a reasonably early hour, I do appeal to the Committee to bring the debate to a conclusion.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to associate myself with the Chancellor's remarks. It may be a little unusual, but he, and the Financial Secretary have been very patient throughout the long debate on football, and we have certainly had a reasonable amount of discussion on this other point. I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment was proposing to withdraw

it, and unless his hon. Friends, or hon. Members on this side of the Committee wish to oppose that withdrawal, I see no great gain in continuing the debate and ask them to accept the Chancellor's request.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Under Standing Order No. 45, I propose to put forthwith the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," as I am of the opinion that the principle has been fully discussed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY ON LUMP SUM PAYMENTS, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gaitskell: This is a Clause which has never really been explained. If the Financial Secretary could, in a few words, explain exactly what advantage is gained by the various clubs concerned, it would be for the convenience not only of the Committee, but of the country generally.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that the Clause looks somewhat formidable in the Bill and, therefore, I gladly respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to inflict a somewhat technical discussion upon the Committee.
The object of the Clause is to clear up what a recent issue of the "Economist" described as
the mighty muddle about the entertainments tax on season tickets.
Under the original provisions of the Act of 1916, under which Entertainments Duty was introduced, the tax on a season ticket was calculated simply in relation to the cost of the ticket. As at that time the Entertainments Duty was of a regressive nature—that is to say, the proportion of the total taken in tax diminished as the price rose—that was to the advantage of the season ticket holder, and no complicated provision of this sort was necessary. Under Section 3 of the Finance


Act, 1944, however, the incidence of the tax was varied so that it became in general a progressive tax—that is to say, with the burden rising proportionately as the figures involved increased.
The framers of the 1944 Act appreciated the consequences of that in the case of season tickets and they tried to provide for the situation by a provision whose intention was that where a season ticket was issued, the duty should be calculated on the basis of the number of tickets as individual and separate tickets that the season ticket represented. To take a simple illustration, a season ticket costing £2 and relating to 20 entertainments, would be calculated on the basis of 20 2s. entertainments.
Certain considerable practical difficulties have, however, arisen in the operation of the provisions of the 1944 Act. In particular, it has been found that the restrictive provision—that it only applied where the rights given by the season tickets were the same as those given by individual tickets—has caused a good many of the clubs not to be able to bring their arrangements within the provisions of the 1944 Act. To take another example, a number of the clubs provide that season ticket holders occupy a particular part of a stand, which is open only to season ticket holders. That has been held to be not the equivalent to individual tickets which do not admit to that part of the stand.
In view of that, a great many of the clubs were unable to come within the Act of 1944. A test case, which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) may recall—

Mr. Wilkins: Yes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) recalls it—the Queen's Park Rangers case—was heard last year. It was—I say it with all respect—unfortun-ately, from a practical point of view, decided on rather narrow grounds. The effect of the decision was that the benefits of the 1944 Act applied only in cases where the make-up of the season ticket was a small booklet, from which a slip was torn off in place of each ticket. The effect generally was that where the ordinary season ticket was simply a piece of cardboard which was issued, the benefit of the provision did not apply.
11.0 p.m.
This Clause is designed to clear up that position, and the substance of it, broadly—and subject to the limitations of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 —is to make the benefit of the 1944 Act and the Queen's Park Rangers decision applicable to all season tickets which come within the general provisions of the Clause. That is to say, they have to relate to entertainments which take place within one year, and the lump sum must constitute full payment for admission to each of the entertainments in respect of which it is paid. The remaining parts of the Clause which, at this stage, I do not think I need trouble the Committee with discussing, are for the purpose either of preventing one fairly obvious method of evasion, or are largely formal.
The substance of the matter is that the benefit which was intended under the 1944 Act should be given; that is to say, where a season ticket is issued the duty paid is calculated not at the fairly high figure which the total cost of the ticket would carry if taken by itself, but it is broken down so that it only reports the aggregate of the amount of duty which would be paid on the number of individual tickets for entry to this particular number of entertainments. The purpose, generally speaking, is that advantage shall be given on all season tickets.
It appears that this will be of advantage to a considerable number of sports clubs in the association and Rugby League fields. I can assure the Committee that to the best of our knowledge no one will be worse off through the provisions of this Clause, and a certain number of people will be appreciably better off. If hon. Members are interested I have available a number of examples of the extent to which the amount of duty payable will be reduced, but I think I can summarise them by saying that the reduction will be appreciable in a number of cases.

Mr. Wilkins: We are grateful to the Financial Secretary for that explanation, and for the way this matter has been dealt with. Just one point arises. It is true that some clubs have one card which constitutes a season ticket, but there are many clubs which have books of tickets with duplicates from which a part is torn


off. Queen's Park Rangers, who won their case, simply had a line on which was indicated the price of the ticket. Many clubs, although they used the same kind of ticket, because they did not have that one item, were unable to make a claim. Will it now be possible for clubs with that type of ticket, but with the line I have mentioned omitted, to make a claim for last year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no provision in the Clause for retrospection. It is brought into effect from 26th April, together with the other changes in the Entertainments Duty.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(RELIEF AND REDUCTION OF PURCHASE TAX ON CERTAIN GOODS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jay: This is a general Clause on Purchase Tax on which it would be possible to have a general debate about that tax. It was our intention to have such a debate, but as I think it is the general wish of the Committee to terminate this discussion shortly we do not propose to press the matter now, on the understanding that the whole issue of Purchase Tax can be fully debated on Clause 9. at a later stage.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): This Clause gives effect to the First Schedule, and deals with the point of electrically propelled vehicles. I gather that it is the general wish that the discussion on Purchase Tax should be postponed until after the Whitsun holiday. By passing this Clause the Committee will not in any way prejudice the subsequent discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton): I should like to make it clear be-

yond a peradventure that I hope to raise certain matters in connection with the proposed abolition of Purchase Tax on London taxi-cabs. If it is clear that certain pleading about that can be raised on consideration of the next Clause I shall be only too pleased to defer what I have to say until then.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: May I take it that the fact that we approve this Clause now will not prevent Amendments to the First Schedule when we come to it?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Maudling: The point about London taxi-cabs can be dealt with on the First Schedule.

Captain Robert Ryder: Shall we have an opportunity to discuss Purchase Tax on gas water-heaters at a subsequent stage? If not, perhaps I could put my point now.

The Deputy-Chairman: It does not arise on this Clause.

Captain Ryder: I thought that this Clause dealt with the reduction of Purchase Tax on certain articles. I wanted to point out that the article to which I wish to call attention has been—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the articles are mentioned in the Schedule it is in order to discuss them. If they are not it is not in order.

Mr. Jay: Perhaps I might help by pointing out that that question will arise on one of the Amendments to Clause 9.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir H. Butcher.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The subject I want to discuss on the Adjournment concerns traffic congestion in the London area. As the House will appreciate this is a question of very great concern to all people who live in and use the Metropolis. It would be convenient, in view of the short time available for dealing with a very large subject, if I based myself, in the questions I want to ask the Minister, on the recently issued report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee headed "London Traffic, 1951–52."
The report points out in serious and emphatic language that, unless adequate steps are taken to relieve it, congestion might well lead to London's transport being brought to a standstill. It says that the number, power, size and weight of vehicles have outgrown the capacity of the streets, many of which have reached saturation point. Since 1938 the number of vehicles in Great Britain has risen from 3 million to 4,500,000. The present rate of increase is 250,000 per annum, of which a large proportion circulate in the London traffic area. The position has, in fact, now been reached that if traffic is to remain fluid the street system in London must be expanded to match the growth in traffic. Road improvements may do something, but the real remedy lies in large-scale widening and the replanning of roads to enable the extra traffic in inner London to circulate more freely.
As the Minister knows, there has been no major improvement in the roads of inner London since 1905, when Kingsway and Aldwych were completed, and at that time the traffic was composed almost entirely of horse-drawn vehicles. I am aware, of course, that there are large arrears of road maintenance work that have accumulated as a result of the war, and that road repairs curtail still further the road space available, and give rise Jo difficult problems, particularly when

the repairs are so extensive as to necessitate the closing of streets.
Another very serious aspect of the traffic congestion in London is the fact that such a large proportion of the police force has to be diverted from other proper police duties to look after London traffic. This is a very serious strain on the available manpower. This very authoritative committee concludes by saying that unless their recommendations are carried out the alternative is stagnation in London traffic sooner or later, and, in their view, in the not very distant future.
What are the remedies that have been suggested? Some of them are contained in the recently published report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what steps the Government are taking to implement the recommendations in that report. That report put forward three concrete suggestions for dealing with this vital problem. It recommended, first, the construction of garages below and above ground. It recommends, as the first stage of the parking plan, that garages should be constructed in four London squares, Grosvenor Square, Berkeley Square, Cavendish Square, and St. James's Square. The committee says that these four garages would cater for 1,820 cars, and that two multi-storey garages would be required subsequently.
They point out that if these garages are built in London squares they would detract nothing from the amenities of the squares. On the contrary, in some cases, notably in the case of St. James's Square, it would add to the amenities, although, of course, there would be a substantial capital cost involved in the outlay that would be recouped because appropriate charges would be made. They make concrete proposals how the cost would be recouped and how the garages should be conducted in conjunction with the local authorities concerned.
Then they recommend the introduction of parking meters. It is notorious how at present cars all over crowded London streets park far longer than the permitted hours. They suggest that parking meter charges should therefore be introduced, and the rate they suggest is 6d. up to an hour, and 1s. for between one and two hours. In addition, they propose a


new and balanced system of waiting regulations. The Minister, I hope, will tell us what has been the result so far of the experiment introduced in some parts of London with regard to unilateral parking.
May I indicate the size of the problem? It would be difficult to exaggerate the annual cost involved to the people of London as a result of traffic congestion. It involves additional cost, not only to London Transport, because buses are delayed and extra petrol is consumed, but also to the travelling public, who lose several hours, and the total cost, one way and another, is almost impossible to calculate exactly.
In so far as one can make an estimate of it, the figures quoted in the report submitted to the Minister give some indication of the size of the problem. The report points out that, 10 years ago, when the County of London Plan was introduced, it contained a statement that, in New York, where there is a comparable problem, the estimated cost of delays to traffic totalled £70 million a year, and it stated that, if a similar estimate were made for London, the cost would probably be found to be of the same order; that is, £70 million a year is the estimated cost of this interminable and increasing congestion in London.
Another estimate has been made of the cost of the delay within the relatively narrow radius of three miles from Charing Cross, and it is £11 million. The report goes on to say:
From a study of certain calculations which were placed before us, we do not feel justified in expressing any opinion on the annual cost to the community of traffic delays in Inner London as a whole, but, as an example, it is estimated that the cost of delays experienced at St. Giles's Circus alone would amount to some £200,000 per annum.
I think the House will agree that this subject is one which urgently requires the attention of the Government. It will get worse and more expensive unless it is tackled soon. The problem of finding the appropriate capital outlay must be faced, and, if it is tackled scientifically on the lines recommended in these reports, the cost can be recouped over a period of years. I hope that we shall hear what the Minister intends to do about it.

11.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Unless something is done in the very near future, there is every prospect that the whole of Central London will be completely immobilised. I therefore hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us what is in the mind of the Ministry of Transport on this very serious problem.
It is a fact that it was possible to travel from one end of Park Lane to the other 50 years ago in a horse-drawn carriage much more quickly than one can get down Park Lane in a high-powered car in this present year of grace. There has been a definite retrogression in that respect, and it is becoming much more difficult than it was before to get from one part of Central London to another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), to whom we are indebted for raising this important subject, gave us some figures of the cost and loss involved. May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of one feature of the problem which was brought very much to the public notice during the lethal fog last December, when a pall hung over the Metropolis? There were thousands upon thousands of cars crawling along or virtually stationary with their engines running, the fumes from their exhausts never getting far up in the air, but being kept down by this pall of smoke and fog which was over London at the time. It may well be that that was one factor which contributed to the loss of life caused by that fog, which, it is estimated, came to no fewer than 6,000 people during the four or five weeks subsequent to the fog.
One other point, arising from the report of the Working Party, about the provision of parking meters. What I do not understand is why the provision of parking meters in Central London is apparently made dependent upon the provision of the underground garages in the four main West End Squares to which my hon. Friend referred. If the capital outlay for providing these underground garages cannot be found at the moment, what is there to prevent the introduction and the installation of these meters, which will make some contribution towards relieving the congestion that is caused by car owners leaving their cars in the most inconvenient


places and causing great obstruction with which the police are apparently unable to deal? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to hold out some hope in the not far distant future that something will be done to prevent London from being completely immobilised.

11.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): For my part I wish that we had a great deal more time to discuss this vast and important problem, but I shall do my best in the time available to give the House a general picture. I am not forgetting the points which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) specifically put. It is interesting in studying the records of the House to see the number of occasions on which this problem has been brought before us. As the hon. Gentleman has said, even in the days of horse-drawn vehicles there was a congestion problem in London, and I have here a picture of Fleet Street taken 60 years ago showing a traffic jam which would do credit to the present day; and that was long before the motor age. I would have said that it is as bad as anything that we have in that thoroughfare now.
The problem changed with the advent of motor traffic and the volume has increased quite substantially. Let us take one or two points in London. The figures I am going to quote are from the Metropolitan Police traffic census for 1952. In 1904, nearly 30,000 vehicles passed Hyde Park Corner during the 12 hours from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and in 1952 there were 77,000, nearly three times as many. In Trafalgar Square there were nearly 28,000 in 1904 and there were 65,000 in 1952. At Piccadilly Circus there were 27,000 in 1904 and 47,000 in 1952.
Incidentally, it may surprise hon. Members to know, as it did me when I came to look at them, the 1952 figures are not peak figures. In 79 places where counts were taken in 1935 and 1952 which were comparable there were 3·2 per cent. less vehicles counted in 1952 than in 1935. It may be that this small fall from the peak figure is due to a shift of population from the inner area of London to the outer suburbs, and it is interesting to know that some of the counts in the

outer areas of London have considerably increased in some places in the last few years.
The vehicles counted at the North Circular Road junction with Hendon Way —not far from where I live—reached the highest ever figure of nearly 35,000 in 1952. This figure is only 800 to 900 vehicles short of the count at Oxford Circus. The number of vehicles counted at Eastern Avenue at the junction of Cranbrook Road reached nearly 30,000, just over 20 per cent. greater than the last count taken there in 1939. To sum all this up, there has been a 15·6 per cent. increase in all vehicles except pedal cycles in 1952 as compared with 1949, or three years ago.
Therefore, the problem of London traffic is a variable one, and although I do not wish in any way to be complacent on this subject, and can assure the House that the problem is constantly before us, I should like to say that quite a number of things have been done over the period about which I am speaking. In the first place, a number of improvements have taken place in London. There have been, for example, the building of the new Waterloo Bridge and recently the improvement of traffic arrangements where necessary as a result of the Festival of Britain, including the redesigning and reconstruction of Parliament Square, the provision of roundabouts at the south end of Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge. These works, small as they are, have had a useful result.
I should like now to turn to traffic signals, a most important improvement. There has been a progressive increase in the number of traffic signals in use in London over the period of the last few years and, what is more important, the existing signals are being modernised. The new installations at Gardiner's Corner, Ludgate Circus, Wellington Street, Strand, and the junction of Kensington High Street and Church Street have all exceeded expectations in the way in which they have improved the traffic flow at these places, and the result of these installations and the modernising of equipment has been a general reduction in the times vehicles have to stop at these intersections.
To give a few instances: from observations taken by the Road Research


Laboratory it is shown that the times vehicles stopped at the Goswell Road/St. John Street intersection in the City Road was reduced from 97 seconds in 1950 to 67 seconds in 1952; at the Tottenham Court Road/Euston Road intersection, from 84 seconds to 61 seconds; at Piccadilly 115 seconds to 69 seconds; and at St. Giles's Circus 74 seconds to 55 seconds. Even where the general picture is better, we have our troubles, and the Oxford Street /Great Portland Street intersection waiting time went up in 1950–52 from 33 seconds to 66 seconds— exactly double. We are, however, hopeful that we shall be able to get the out of date signal equipment in Oxford Street modernised during the current year, and this important work is now in hand.
A number of other useful things have been done since the end of the war which have also improved traffic arrangements. There has been the highly successful introduction of no waiting on a large number of the important streets in inner London which has kept the traffic moving in spite of the heavy increase to which I have referred. We are now engaged in an experiment in unilateral waiting which, I think, shows signs of being promising and, of course, we have recently seen the removal of tram tracks, which undoubtedly will assist in decreasing traffic congestion and reducing accidents as well. We have done what we can to educate the public in the best way of avoiding congestion areas and only a few days ago we arranged for H.M. Stationery Office to issue a new through route map of London, designed specially to help those who have to come through our difficult Metropolis. The result has been that, although traffic has gone up by 156 per cent. in 1952 as compared with 1949, the speed of London traffic has not declined.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) stressed the effect upon commerce and business as a result of delay, and I was given a very interesting instance the other day by London Transport who told us that if it were possible to increase the average speed of their buses in London by 1 m.p.h., it would result in a saving in fuel of £2 million. The Road Research Laboratory take regular observations along a run of 35 miles of London streets and the following is the

result of their observations. In 1947, their run was done at an average speed of 11·1 m.p.h. In 1950, after the abolition of petrol restrictions, it went down to 10·9 m.p.h. In 1952 it was 11·5. In other words, the position today is slightly better than it was in 1947, despite the large increase in traffic.
The last thing I want to do is to give the House the impression that we are happy with the existing state of affairs. Indeed we are not. We profoundly hope that the economic situation of the country will allow us in the not too distant future to accept some of the important recommendations about street improvements which have been received from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and possibly to begin to make some modest street improvements in the inner area to improve the flow of traffic there, but I must point out to the House that street works in inner London are now a very costly matter.
I now turn to the question of parking, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred particularly. We should, of course, like to see some arrangements for dealing with the increasing number of vehicles which are parked on side streets, congesting them in such a way that traffic is thereby thrown or decanted on to the main highways, causing a general slow down of London traffic. We have just been reminded that a Working Party recently reported on this difficult problem—a most valuable document, in my opinion—suggesting building over-ground garages and a number of them under the London squares, the cost to be subsidised by the parking meters, which have been referred to, in authorised car-parks on the highway.
I was asked what the position was regarding this proposal. I can only say that my right hon. Friend is giving this report his most careful personal attention, his main preoccupation being to ensure—and I think Londoners will agree with this—that the valuable amenities of the London squares are maintained. In particular, he is going carefully into the question of whether underground garages could be provided in London squares without the loss of the fine trees which are their historic glory.
We still think there are one or two steps which the public can take which would help very considerably. Just to


give one instance, it ought to be more fully understood than it is at present that to park a vehicle close to an intersection controlled by traffic lights is one of the most unhelpful things anybody can do. A single vehicle parked five yards from a traffic light intersection reduces the flow through the intersection by as much as 30 per cent. If drivers understood this and avoided doing it the flow at a number of intersections would be greatly speeded up and I should like to take this opportunity of saying, in the hope that it may receive some publicity that we are coming to the conclusion that we shall have to prohibit this practice.

Mr. E. Fletcher: At all intersections?

Mr. Braithwaite: The practice of parking near traffic light intersections.
I should like to mention, in passing. that this year we are spending £250,000, the greater part of which will be for London, on traffic lights, in installation and modernisation.
I should like to conclude with a tribute to the work of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, whose patient work in advising my right hon. Friend on how to improve traffic congestion is most helpful to us at the Ministry. We have studied their reports with the greatest care. Their advice is

invaluable and invariably followed in day-to-day matters of local importance, and my right hon. Friend is very conscious of the need of their advice in particular matters concerning street improvements, which have been referred to once more in their Report on London Traffic in 1951–52. We at the Ministry applaud the Committee's work and acknowledge our great debt to them.
As I have already said, I am sorry that this debate cannot go on for two or three hours. It would have been interesting to have had contributions from hon. Gentlemen representing London constituencies in general. Perhaps a Friday might provide an opportunity in which to go into this question in full. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East for having raised the subject tonight to enable me to give an all too brief account of what we are endeavouring to do. It is my earnest hope that, in the not too distant future, we shall be able to take active steps to improve the physical layout for traffic in inner London, while, at the same time, maintaining the beauties of our squares, which are the pride of our people.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.